Diamond Multimedia rules.
Unknown
>I am quite pleased with Diamond's support. They have
>sent me two BIOS revisions for my Stealth 3240 absolutely
>free!
>And performance just CANT be beat......
>
>
>
>>I am getting so *cheesed of with this *two bob* company as they are
>>draging there feet with there *in control tools* and there drivers for
>>win95".
>
>there? Maybe "Their"
>
>>
>>I have a 2mb diamomd stealth32 and thing is not worth a piece of
>>*shit* since I have upgraded to win95".
>
>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
>to fare well regardless of OS?
>
>>
>>I use there advice regarding changing my resolutions and the screen
>>goes *darker* and goes to one side and what has happend to my 16.7
>>million colours all the shit I have is *256* colours.
>
>Once again, "their"
>
>Maybe you just don't try hard enough. Have you tried GO95.EXE
>(of course, you wouldn't need it, had you a decent monitor).
>There are tons of utilities to set refresh rate and centering.
>
>>
>>SB16 was on the ball straight away so why not these *gerks* maybe
>>because they do not give a shit about us.
>
>Huh? Typical "novice" PC user.
>>
>>WELL * DIAMOND* I am going to tell every one not to buy any of your
>>products as you do not care about us so why should I give a shit about
>>you.
>
>I'm sure they are hurting now. Maybe they'll come to your doorstep and
>apologize
>
Diamond MM blows as far as Win95 drivers and In Control. Every month
since Oct. they have moved their release dates
ahead 30 days for Stealth Video 2200
Grady E. Miller
heard about Diamond (and that would be alot, since I'm a support engineer
for a leading operating system (guess... :) ) have all been NIGHTMARES!!!
On top of that, I have a Stealth 64 that I've been trying to get decent
drivers for FOREVER (2 megs of VRAM...is this card obsolete? I think not,
although since Diamond has their oh so f*cked up Edge 3D out, they might say
different).
Diamond sucks, sucks, sucks. I will never buy another Diamond product, and
there are several other companies (Gravis among them) that I pretty much feel
the same about.
jdm.
Ed Hochman
: apologize
No. That's the sad part. They just don't give a damn.
Ed
Ed Hochman MBH Systems, Inc. e...@mbhsys.com
jdm.
>>sent me two BIOS revisions for my Stealth 3240 absolutely
>>free!
>
>already had to update their BIOSs twice....
Hello, idiot, the two BIOS's were for more modes,
ie, weird SVGA modes (stuff like uhh......1157x1024 or whatever)
>>And performance just CANT be beat......
>
>There's more to a good card than performane, which is exactly why I
>dumped my Diamond card and went to ATI.
Please do research, S3 cards outperform the Mach64 accelerator
so bad that it's not funny.
Why don't you post some benchmark numbers. Compare the Mach64 and
the S3-968 in the same machine. Im willing to bet $11100000000000000000000
that the S3 chip wins. (hell, I know it'll win; I've seen it too
many times.)
>Diamond is truly sloppy in the writing and slack in the support of
>their video card drivers.
Hey, idiot. S3 programs Diamonds drivers. Nobody else.
S3 programs drivers for ALL their OEM's.
>>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
>>to fare well regardless of OS?
>
>It's actually a very nice chipset, heads and shoulders above any other
>32-bit chipset. It was actually the best bang for the buck card
>available for a long time (approx. six months). Not exactly a
>"shitty" card. Unfortunately Diamond is an incompetent company, and
>their idea of support is providing an initial set of drivers that
>"pretty much" work.
Best Chipset? ET4000? Please.
Do the math:
1- DRAM.
2- Early versions did not offer win. acceleration.
3- Lacking in performance. (except in Dos, maybe.)
>I had the exact same shifting problems. Diamond sent me a BIOS update
>after a couple months of e-mail, but that only fixed the shifting
>problems in DOS between text and 320x200 graphics mode. The video
>drivers were another problem, and after watching Diamond let the new
>1.03 drivers sit in beta for five months, I decided to sell before the
>card because a frisbee. Here I am four months later, and the drivers
>are still sitting in exactly the same state. Way to go, Diamond.
You must not try hard enough to fix your problems.
These problems are simple enough for a five year old to fix.
Heard of centering utilities? S64mode?
That or get a decent monitor. Most decent monitors have CPU's
to save settings for each mode.
Another Novice user.
>Get a life!
Get a brain.
>>>Maybe you just don't try hard enough. Have you tried GO95.EXE
>>(of course, you wouldn't need it, had you a decent monitor).
>>There are tons of utilities to set refresh rate and centering.
>
>This statement just shows your ignorance about the problems the guy is
>experiencing. Centering works perfect in DOS, and even with Tseng's
>ET4000 drivers for Win31. Unfortunately, the Windows drivers appear
>to bypass such utilities because of the InControl Tools' refresh rate
>and centering options. The options work in the drivers, but when you
>change to the more intense modes at a given resolution (such as
>640x480 true color, 800x600 high color, 1024x768 high color) the
>frequencies changes and the whole screen shifts. You can re-adjust
>the centering, but if you switch back to another color depths it's
>screwed for there other modes. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Hey idiot, Go95 works even without Incontrol tools. I used
it to set Win95's refresh rate+centering in autoexec.
>>>WELL * DIAMOND* I am going to tell every one not to buy any of your
>>>products as you do not care about us so why should I give a shit about
>>>you.
>
>Exactly. Don't buy their products, and let everyone know how much
>Diamond cares about their customers, because there's MANY others like
>you and I getting screwed by these guys whose product support cycle is
>about as short as most companys' pay periods.
you make me sick. Diamond has great, friendly tech support, certainly
a notch above other companies. And drivers have never been a problem,
since S3 programs them all for their OEM's. The exception here is
ATI, they make the chipset and the drivers (albeit more expensive,
and not as high performing as S3 offerings, such as 968, 868 732, ETC.)
Charles Thiele
>I am quite pleased with Diamond's support. They have
>sent me two BIOS revisions for my Stealth 3240 absolutely
>free!
Someone's either sloppy or not thinking too far ahead if they have
already had to update their BIOSs twice....
>And performance just CANT be beat......
There's more to a good card than performane, which is exactly why I
dumped my Diamond card and went to ATI.
>>I am getting so *cheesed of with this *two bob* company as they are
>>draging there feet with there *in control tools* and there drivers for
>>win95".
Diamond is truly sloppy in the writing and slack in the support of
their video card drivers.
>there? Maybe "Their"
I don't think the issue here is his grammar....
>>
>>I have a 2mb diamomd stealth32 and thing is not worth a piece of
>>*shit* since I have upgraded to win95".
Exactly the same reason I sold mine and bought an ATI...the
non-standard BIOS doesn't work with the Win95 Ttseng ET4000W32P
drivers.
>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
>to fare well regardless of OS?
It's actually a very nice chipset, heads and shoulders above any other
32-bit chipset. It was actually the best bang for the buck card
available for a long time (approx. six months). Not exactly a
"shitty" card. Unfortunately Diamond is an incompetent company, and
their idea of support is providing an initial set of drivers that
"pretty much" work.
>>
>>I use there advice regarding changing my resolutions and the screen
>>goes *darker* and goes to one side and what has happend to my 16.7
>>million colours all the shit I have is *256* colours.
I had the exact same shifting problems. Diamond sent me a BIOS update
after a couple months of e-mail, but that only fixed the shifting
problems in DOS between text and 320x200 graphics mode. The video
drivers were another problem, and after watching Diamond let the new
1.03 drivers sit in beta for five months, I decided to sell before the
card because a frisbee. Here I am four months later, and the drivers
are still sitting in exactly the same state. Way to go, Diamond.
>Once again, "their"
Get a life!
>Maybe you just don't try hard enough. Have you tried GO95.EXE
>(of course, you wouldn't need it, had you a decent monitor).
>There are tons of utilities to set refresh rate and centering.
This statement just shows your ignorance about the problems the guy is
experiencing. Centering works perfect in DOS, and even with Tseng's
ET4000 drivers for Win31. Unfortunately, the Windows drivers appear
to bypass such utilities because of the InControl Tools' refresh rate
and centering options. The options work in the drivers, but when you
change to the more intense modes at a given resolution (such as
640x480 true color, 800x600 high color, 1024x768 high color) the
frequencies changes and the whole screen shifts. You can re-adjust
the centering, but if you switch back to another color depths it's
screwed for there other modes. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
>>SB16 was on the ball straight away so why not these *gerks* maybe
>>because they do not give a shit about us.
Exactly...I will never buy another Diamond ard again, and will never
recommend their cards (I'm a technician). If anyone buys one from our
store and has problems, I'll tell them to return it if it's within the
return period and buy an ATI. I've already done this many times.
Someday Diamond will smarten up if us who support users don't put up
with their crap.
>Huh? Typical "novice" PC user.
Get a life again....
>>WELL * DIAMOND* I am going to tell every one not to buy any of your
>>products as you do not care about us so why should I give a shit about
>>you.
Exactly. Don't buy their products, and let everyone know how much
Diamond cares about their customers, because there's MANY others like
you and I getting screwed by these guys whose product support cycle is
about as short as most companys' pay periods.
>I'm sure they are hurting now. Maybe they'll come to your doorstep and
>apologize
Get a life again...try being helpful instead of being an arrogant
moron...
----Charles Thiele----| Why can't someone come out with a real
---- PsychoTech / ----| movie like "Driver King" about a guy
---- Tweak Freak -----| who collects hoardes of hardware
-cth...@uniserve.com-| drivers and finally diefies..or
----------------------| whatever..........
Brandon Curiel
>>There's more to a good card than performane, which is exactly why I
>>dumped my Diamond card and went to ATI.
>
>Please do research, S3 cards outperform the Mach64 accelerator
Please read, quote "Performance isn't everything."
>>Diamond is truly sloppy in the writing and slack in the support of
>>their video card drivers.
>
>Hey, idiot. S3 programs Diamonds drivers. Nobody else.
>S3 programs drivers for ALL their OEM's.
So, it's not Diamond's fault, they just SELL the card.
>>It's actually a very nice chipset, heads and shoulders above any other
>>32-bit chipset. It was actually the best bang for the buck card
>>available for a long time (approx. six months). Not exactly a
>>"shitty" card. Unfortunately Diamond is an incompetent company, and
>>their idea of support is providing an initial set of drivers that
>>"pretty much" work.
>
>Best Chipset? ET4000? Please.
>Do the math:
>1- DRAM.
>2- Early versions did not offer win. acceleration.
>3- Lacking in performance. (except in Dos, maybe.)
So tell me about these other great 32bit cards that were out at the time.
>You must not try hard enough to fix your problems.
>These problems are simple enough for a five year old to fix.
>Heard of centering utilities? S64mode?
I think that's the point. Who wants to have to try to make something work.
I dunno, I usually like to buy something that works all on its own.
>That or get a decent monitor. Most decent monitors have CPU's
>to save settings for each mode.
>you make me sick. Diamond has great, friendly tech support, certainly
>a notch above other companies. And drivers have never been a problem,
>since S3 programs them all for their OEM's. The exception here is
>ATI, they make the chipset and the drivers (albeit more expensive,
>and not as high performing as S3 offerings, such as 968, 868 732, ETC.)
>
Hmm, in summation:
1. Buy a new monitor that can save timings for each resolution.
2. Get utilities to make the card work properly.
3. Dish out two or three hundred bucks for a card that is unstable in
Windows 95.
4. Appreciate the fact that they have friendly people in tech support.
I'll tell you, the best kind of company has the kind of technical support
you never need to call.
jdm.
>>so bad that it's not funny.
>>Why don't you post some benchmark numbers. Compare the Mach64 and
>>the S3-968 in the same machine. Im willing to bet $11100000000000000000000
>>that the S3 chip wins. (hell, I know it'll win; I've seen it too
>>many times.)
>
>PERFORMANCE".
Apparently so....ATI, performance wise will not cut it.
>Is that big enough, dumb ass?
I think Performance is VERY important...If not, Just get a ISA vid. card,
dumb ass.
>Now, add to this the fact that your wonderful card has no acceleration
>features under win95, and you will find the ATI GPT beats it *handily*.
>If you want great performance, Matrox is currently head and shoulders above
>Diamond with the Millennium.
Matrox? Head and shoulders? Do some research; I've looked
at tons of benchmark figures and this is not true.
Obviously your "trademark" words will not cut it....some
benchmark numbers, please.
Benchmarks show that the Matrox performs similarly to the S3-968 in Windows,
but the 968 is faster in DOS.
>>Hey, idiot. S3 programs Diamonds drivers. Nobody else.
>>S3 programs drivers for ALL their OEM's.
>
>Diamond is responsible for getting the drivers out to their customers.
>STB, #9 and Hercules all use S3 chips, their S3 cards have had accelerated
>win95 drivers for many months. So much for this idea.
Oh please, The Win95 CD-ROM ******COMES******* with drivers (accelerated)
for all S3, Diamond, ETC. cards....those that don't are bundled
with a drivers disk for Win95.
>You must work for Diamond tech support. They have room for people like you.
You, sir, are a true moron.
>The regular deluge of posts here are testimony to the falsity of your
>statement. While their tech support is around average, the big problem is
>that they do not support their products.
I bet you haven't even tried a Diamond product...try one, you'll
like it. No support? surely, you gest.
>If S3 programs all the drivers, why hasn't Diamond released them?
>It is well know that Hercules, #9, and STB have already produced quality
>drivers for their S3 cards. I guess you bought into Diamonds bullshit.
They *HAVE* You STUPID IDIOT!! Go visit their Ftp site.
Look at the Win95 CD-ROM, which has drivers (accelerated drivers,
you moron) for most S3 cards. All Diamond cards that don't
have drivers as part of the Win95 CD-ROM have a win95 drivers
disk bundled....
jdm.
>friend:
This must be an ego type thing.
>>Hmm, in summation:
>
>>1. Buy a new monitor that can save timings for each resolution.
>
>Did that, didn't help. We're dealing with subtle timing differences
>that even digital monitors assume are the same modes because all video
>cards have subtle timing differences.
that is a play on my original words....did I say that everybody
should buy a new monitor? No. But, you "Did that"...personally,
I wouldn't shell out 300+ dollars for a new monitor
just because of a centering problem that can be alleviated with software.
>
>>2. Get utilities to make the card work properly.
>
>Did that, didn't help. Our fine flaming friend didn't understand
>(among many things, it seems) my description about the independent
>timings that the Diamond drivers use that override centering
>utilities.
Diamond (s3 I should say)drivers override centering utilities?
Hmmm........Quite an interesting theory.
>>3. Dish out two or three hundred bucks for a card that is unstable in
>>Windows 95.
>
>This was the unfortunate solution, but it has worked flawlessly and I
>hope to save others from the same fate.
So your unstable card works flawlessly in Win95?
>>4. Appreciate the fact that they have friendly people in tech support.
>
>>I'll tell you, the best kind of company has the kind of technical support
>>you never need to call.
>
>EXACTLY. Finally someone who understands.
Do you realize that 95+% of Diamond customers are satisfied with
their product....you have no clue.
Timothy P. Kelley
>>>And performance just CANT be beat......
>>There's more to a good card than performane, which is exactly why I
>>dumped my Diamond card and went to ATI.
>Please do research, S3 cards outperform the Mach64 accelerator
>so bad that it's not funny.
>Why don't you post some benchmark numbers. Compare the Mach64 and
>the S3-968 in the same machine. Im willing to bet $11100000000000000000000
>that the S3 chip wins. (hell, I know it'll win; I've seen it too
>many times.)
Can you read? He said, clearly, *THERE'S MORE TO A GOOD CARD THAN GOOD
PERFORMANCE". Is that big enough, dumb ass?
Now, add to this the fact that your wonderful card has no acceleration
features under win95, and you will find the ATI GPT beats it *handily*.
If you want great performance, Matrox is currently head and shoulders above
Diamond with the Millennium.
>>Diamond is truly sloppy in the writing and slack in the support of
>>their video card drivers.
>
>Hey, idiot. S3 programs Diamonds drivers. Nobody else.
>S3 programs drivers for ALL their OEM's.
Diamond is responsible for getting the drivers out to their customers.
STB, #9 and Hercules all use S3 chips, their S3 cards have had accelerated
win95 drivers for many months. So much for this idea.
>>>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
>>>to fare well regardless of OS?
ET4000, yes, is kind of slow for GUI work; however, it is one of the most
popular chips ever made and deserves the support. A lot of people use it.
>That or get a decent monitor. Most decent monitors have CPU's
>to save settings for each mode.
>Another Novice user.
>>Get a life!
>Get a brain.
You must work for Diamond tech support. They have room for people like you.
>>Exactly. Don't buy their products, and let everyone know how much
>>Diamond cares about their customers, because there's MANY others like
>>you and I getting screwed by these guys whose product support cycle is
>>about as short as most companys' pay periods.
>you make me sick. Diamond has great, friendly tech support, certainly
>a notch above other companies.
The regular deluge of posts here are testimony to the falsity of your
statement. While their tech support is around average, the big problem is
that they do not support their products.
>And drivers have never been a problem,
>since S3 programs them all for their OEM's. The exception here is
>ATI, they make the chipset and the drivers (albeit more expensive,
>and not as high performing as S3 offerings, such as 968, 868 732, ETC.)
If S3 programs all the drivers, why hasn't Diamond released them?
It is well know that Hercules, #9, and STB have already produced quality
drivers for their S3 cards. I guess you bought into Diamonds bullshit.
>Another Novice user.
Another sucker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy P. Kelley E-mail:tke...@ix.netcom.com
"The three things were damnably clever constructions of their kind,
and were furnished with ingenious mettalic clamps to attach them to
organic developments of which I dare not form any conjecture."
-H.P. Lovecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Thiele
Hey, here's a short version of what I sent back to our fine flaming
friend:
>Hmm, in summation:
>1. Buy a new monitor that can save timings for each resolution.
Did that, didn't help. We're dealing with subtle timing differences
that even digital monitors assume are the same modes because all video
cards have subtle timing differences.
>2. Get utilities to make the card work properly.
Did that, didn't help. Our fine flaming friend didn't understand
(among many things, it seems) my description about the independent
timings that the Diamond drivers use that override centering
utilities.
>3. Dish out two or three hundred bucks for a card that is unstable in
>Windows 95.
This was the unfortunate solution, but it has worked flawlessly and I
hope to save others from the same fate.
>4. Appreciate the fact that they have friendly people in tech support.
>I'll tell you, the best kind of company has the kind of technical support
>you never need to call.
EXACTLY. Finally someone who understands.
----Charles Thiele----| Why can't someone come out with a real
B. Rainey
>Who'd you blow for that kind of support? 90% of the support stories I've
>heard about Diamond (and that would be alot, since I'm a support engineer
>for a leading operating system (guess... :) ) have all been NIGHTMARES!!!
>On top of that, I have a Stealth 64 that I've been trying to get decent
>drivers for FOREVER (2 megs of VRAM...is this card obsolete? I think not,
>although since Diamond has their oh so f*cked up Edge 3D out, they might say
>different).
>
>Diamond sucks, sucks, sucks. I will never buy another Diamond product, and
>there are several other companies (Gravis among them) that I pretty much feel
>the same about.
>
You too???? I have a Brand New Diamond stealth 64 with 2MB VRAM that will
only display 16 colors!!! And when I call Diamond, all I get is an
answering machine. AND they will NOT return my messages!! The system I am
installing it on is a Intel Pentium 100 with Tritor Chipset - one of the
best in the industry. I am thinking about taking the piece of &^%$#@@!
back!
B. Rainey
Chris Akins
>>If S3 programs all the drivers, why hasn't Diamond released them?
>>It is well know that Hercules, #9, and STB have already produced quality
>>drivers for their S3 cards. I guess you bought into Diamonds bullshit.
>They *HAVE* You STUPID IDIOT!! Go visit their Ftp site.
>Look at the Win95 CD-ROM, which has drivers (accelerated drivers,
>you moron) for most S3 cards. All Diamond cards that don't
>have drivers as part of the Win95 CD-ROM have a win95 drivers
>disk bundled....
The drivers provided on the disk are not only accelerated for 8-bit
color. Beyond that they are not accelerated. And video acceleration
is non-existant! Any there is no driver for WIN95 for the Diamond MVP
2200 or 2000 daughter card! I have a $300 dollar daughter card for my
Diamond Stealth 64 Video VRAM which won't do a damn thing until
Diamond "gets around to building a driver" BTW - I managed to get
Diamond developer relations to send me the Beta version of their WIN95
drivers. No In-Control panel yet, and it wont work in anything but
256 color mode!
Chris Akins
>Do you realize that 95+% of Diamond customers are satisfied with
>their product....you have no clue.
However, only 10% of Diamond customers are satisfied with Diamond
Support for Win 95. They wont have accelerated drivers till Jan 19,
1995. STB and #9 have drivers now and they use the S3 chip. And ATI
has gone through 2 version of WIN95 drivers(the second one add MPEG
playback (gee a new idea enchance the product!!!)) Meanwhile I have a
$800 dollar Diamond Stealth 64 Video VRAM with the MVP 2200 MPEG
duaghter card and it performs like a $100 S3 video card!!!! The MVP
2200 is a hardware MPEG player that Diamond developed and I can't even
use it under WIN95!!!!! Yet ATI can get all of their 64 bit video
cards to run MPEG in software. What the Hell is going on here. Ever
month Diamond rolls it's driver release schedule back 2 months.
BTW - Diamond could have been writing the drivers back in July of 95.
I am a Microsoft developer and I had DDKs for 3D-DDI 32
bit GDI, and even the unfinalized Direct Draw and Direct
Video. So don't even say they couldn't build drivers
because of Microsoft.
Robert McDonald
>>Hey, idiot. S3 programs Diamonds drivers. Nobody else.
>>S3 programs drivers for ALL their OEM's.
>
>So, it's not Diamond's fault, they just SELL the card.
Don't kid yourself. Diamond may only "re-sell" products made by other
companies, but they appear to have no qualms about putting out
firmware that is NOT ready for prime time! The worst experiences I've
had in computing came at the hands of some pretty poor quality
hardware that was being marketed under the Diamond brand-name,
most-recently was the 8x IDE CD-ROM drive which was part of their
Multimedia 8000 kit. What a piece of dung! I took it back TWICE,
and NEVER got it to run properly. I did get it to run, but it made a
ton of wierd grinding noises, and caused Windows Explorer to "pop"
when viewing a directory listing. Total garbage, from a
personal-experience point of view. I wrote a letter to the President
of Diamond. He blew it off, never even responded. Now that's a
CARING company. I noted that the guy who owns Diamond donated a
kajillion dollars to the asian museum in SF or something. WHy not put
a couple of bucks into TAKING CARE OF THE CUSTOMER?
Regards,
Scott McDonald Forte Agent .99
_________________________________________________________________________
m...@community.net
Advice given is without warranty and recipient assumes all risks.
_________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth B. Nguyen
>Hi
> Just got to put my two pence worth into this discussion. Am I
>the only one to get a Stealth 64 DRAM (2MB) to work properley with
>Win95 ?. I am running perfectly well at 1024x768 in 64K colours, with
>a refresh rate of 70HZ. If you use the drivers in the
>drivers/display/diamond directory on the CD the refresh rates of
>monitor type you selected will be passed on to the card (I have an ADI
>Microscan 4V). The only thing that pisses me off is that I still need
>to use S64DMODE.EXE to center the screen, as otherwise it is to far
>out to pull in with the monitors control own controls. I am a bit
>disturbed about the comments that the Win 95 drivers are not
>accelerated, but it seems fast enough to me (I have a 16MB P75).
>Cheers Tony.
I've had no trouble in the sense that my windows display looks find,
but I'm extremely pissed off about the lack of driver support. Yes,
I get the proper refresh rate, and windows runs fine on my P90 w/
16MB, but I have an expensive video card sitting in my machine
that's performing basically no functions beyond those that any
$50 card could do. I'll never buy Diamond again, that's for damn
sure. When I buy 3D card it definitely won't be their dysfunctional
blunt Edge.
liz
Timothy P. Kelley
>>Can you read? He said, clearly, *THERE'S MORE TO A GOOD CARD THAN GOOD
>>PERFORMANCE".
>Apparently so....ATI, performance wise will not cut it.
>>Is that big enough, dumb ass?
>I think Performance is VERY important...If not, Just get a ISA vid. card,
>dumb ass.
It is important, and while the GPT may not be as fast as the Stealth, it is still a very
quick card and you can hardly put it in a class with ISA Tridentsa nd the like. Don't be
ridiculous.
>>If you want great performance, Matrox is currently head and shoulders above
>>Diamond with the Millennium.
>Matrox? Head and shoulders? Do some research; I've looked
>at tons of benchmark figures and this is not true.
>Obviously your "trademark" words will not cut it....some
>benchmark numbers, please.
Here are some Winbench 95 scores.
Both cards are at 1024x768@16 bit color at 72hz.
Both are using an Asus P-55TP4XE motherboard, the Stealth results were using a P120, the
Millennium a P-100, both had 16 Mb 60ns RAM and 256k PB cache.
Millennium was using driver version 2.0, Stealth was using Win95 CD ROM drivers.
The effect of the faster CPU is considerable under WB 95. I regret I do not have any
results using the same CPU; this was as close as I could get.
I would assume the Stealth would be a good 3-4 points slower using a P-100, but it's hard
to say since the P100 does have a slightly faster PCI bus than a P-120 (33 vs 30mhz)if
anything though, the 20mHz internal clock advantage is *very* significant, and the
Millennium still beats it by about 3 WM. I can't even be sure the Stealth results are
genuine, but must assume they are. Any PCI S64 VRAM video owners out there are welcome to
run WB 95 and follow up to this with your results, using the win 95 CD drivers.
Software configurations also affect WB a lot. The following is the best I can do for now
(my friend who owns a S64 Video VRAM does not have Win 95 and won't install it, otherwise
I would clock my cpu at 75mHz and test them both)
Matrox Millennium PCI 2M/V GWM 95: 19.4
Stealth 64 Video 3240 2M/V GWM 95: 16.6
Here are some Vidspeed scores. The Millennium and Stealth scores were
taken from a perfectly clean boot.
Vidspeed is a very good DOS benchmark which tests the speed of video writes/reads
to RAM, independent of CPU speeds. 3d bench is useless for testing merits of different
cards since it is highly CPU dependent, neither does it measure SVGA performance.
The Millennium an Asus P55TP4XE/P100, the Stealth an Intel Zappa/P75.
Vidspeed 4.0
Matrox MGA Millennium
8208W 1624R Bytes per millisecond 27.92KHz 69.79Hz 320x200x256 (VGA/MCGA)
21557W 3202R 16 bit writes/reads
75851W 5904R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 1696R Bytes per millisecond 29.12KHz 60.67Hz 360x480x256 (VGA)
21557W 3076R 16 bit writes/reads
32623W 5400R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2881R Bytes per millisecond 28.83KHz 60.06Hz 640x480x256 (S-VGA)
21559W 5522R 16 bit writes/reads
80640W 10184R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2880R Bytes per millisecond 36.11KHz 60.16Hz 800x600x256 (S-VGA)
21559W 5519R 16 bit writes/reads
79872W 10147R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2878R Bytes per millisecond 46.16KHz 60.10Hz 1024x768x256 (S-VGA)
21559W 5519R 16 bit writes/reads
79118W 10080R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2881R Bytes per millisecond 28.83KHz 60.06Hz 640x480x16bit (S-VGA)
21559W 5517R 16 bit writes/reads
79872W 10184R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2880R Bytes per millisecond 36.11KHz 60.16Hz 800x600x16bit (S-VGA)
21559W 5519R 16 bit writes/reads
79493W 10147R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2878R Bytes per millisecond 46.16KHz 60.10Hz 1024x768x16bit (S-VGA)
21559W 5429R 16 bit writes/reads
77295W 10080R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2880R Bytes per millisecond 28.83KHz 60.06Hz 640x480x24bit (S-VGA)
21559W 5501R 16 bit writes/reads
78014W 10184R 32 bit writes/reads
8210W 2879R Bytes per millisecond 36.11KHz 60.16Hz 800x600x24bit (S-VGA)
21559W 5508R 16 bit writes/reads
77653W 10147R 32 bit writes/reads
Diamond Stealth 64 Video VRAM (S3 968)
7641W 1330R Bytes per millisecond 27.91KHz 69.76Hz 320x200x256 (VGA/MCGA)
18681W 2661R 16 bit writes/reads
24200W 3494R 32 bit writes/reads
7333W 1324R Bytes per millisecond 29.11KHz 60.65Hz 360x480x256 (VGA)
10297W 1770R 16 bit writes/reads
10482W 2143R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1443R Bytes per millisecond 34.95KHz 72.81Hz 640x480x256 (S-VGA)
19873W 1962R 16 bit writes/reads
21367W 2387R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1444R Bytes per millisecond 36.05KHz 60.08Hz 800x600x256 (S-VGA)
19873W 1961R 16 bit writes/reads
21312W 2386R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1444R Bytes per millisecond 33.27KHz 86.66Hz 1024x768x256 (S-VGA)
19873W 1952R 16 bit writes/reads
21312W 2382R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1438R Bytes per millisecond 34.95KHz 72.81Hz 640x480x16bit (S-VGA)
19873W 1960R 16 bit writes/reads
21312W 2391R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1433R Bytes per millisecond 36.05KHz 60.08Hz 800x600x16bit (S-VGA)
19873W 1961R 16 bit writes/reads
21231W 2382R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1442R Bytes per millisecond 34.95KHz 72.81Hz 640x480x24bit (S-VGA)
19873W 1967R 16 bit writes/reads
21178W 2384R 32 bit writes/reads
7641W 1437R Bytes per millisecond 36.05KHz 60.08Hz 800x600x24bit (S-VGA)
19873W 1959R 16 bit writes/reads
21178W 2380R 32 bit writes/reads
>Benchmarks show that the Matrox performs similarly to the S3-968 in Windows,
>but the 968 is faster in DOS.
You can see the Stealth is slightly slower in nearly every VESA mode.
>Matrox? Head and shoulders?
Millennium has a 3d accelerator which can do 190,000 Gouraud shaded texture mapped
polygons/sec.; uses WRAM, can have up to 8MB WRAM, has a superior driver suite, and is
faster, and offers everything else the Stealth has, for less. The Stealth is no longer a
wise purchase. I would say performance overall is similar, excepting Windows 95.
The features make it 'head and shoulders' above, IMO, esp. the 3d stuff.
If you want a detailed point by point comparison of VRAM and WRAM, see Matrox's web page
<www.matrox.com>.
>Oh please, The Win95 CD-ROM ******COMES******* with drivers (accelerated)
>for all S3, Diamond, ETC. cards....those that don't are bundled
>with a drivers disk for Win95.
The acceleration features are minimal. It doesn't warrant buying one now.
Before Win95's release, you would have a point. Not anymore.
>>You must work for Diamond tech support. They have room for people like you.
>You, sir, are a true moron.
How does this qualify me as a moron? You barge in here flaming away, and you expect
people to be polite?
>>The regular deluge of posts here are testimony to the falsity of your
>>statement. While their tech support is around average, the big problem is
>>that they do not support their products.
>I bet you haven't even tried a Diamond product...try one, you'll
>like it. No support? surely, you gest.
I have a Sonic Sound card, one of the worst sound cards ever made
(purchased a long time ago in ignorance).
I've used the Stealth64 DRAM and VRAM quite a bit, and was extremely impressed with their
performance when I first used them. I used to recommend Diamond cards highly to people.
They don't answer email (or do it on a random basis), they have totally orphaned some of
their products (Viper- anyone remember that card?), and in spite of your rantings, they
have not produced a driver suite comparable to what they had for Win 3.1 for Windows 95.
They have had plenty of time. There is no excuse.
>>If S3 programs all the drivers, why hasn't Diamond released them?
>>It is well know that Hercules, #9, and STB have already produced quality
>>drivers for their S3 cards. I guess you bought into Diamonds bullshit.
>They *HAVE* You STUPID IDIOT!! Go visit their Ftp site.
>Look at the Win95 CD-ROM, which has drivers (accelerated drivers,
>you moron) for most S3 cards. All Diamond cards that don't
>have drivers as part of the Win95 CD-ROM have a win95 drivers
>disk bundled....
Compare those drivers to your card's performance under Win3.1.
The drivers from the above mentioned companies improved performance
*considerably* over the generic Windows 95 CD ROM S3 drivers.
Ask Dylan Rhodes.
Tony Lonorgan
stev...@teleport.com
>I am quite pleased with Diamond's support. They have
>sent me two BIOS revisions for my Stealth 3240 absolutely
>free!
>And performance just CANT be beat......
>
[snip]
>I'm sure they are hurting now. Maybe they'll come to your doorstep and
>apologize
>
[more snippage]
Welllll....
They can come to my door and apologize too.
I've used Diamond products for the last 3 years, and they have gotten
absolutely their *LAST* dollar from me. Sure their cards are fast,
but the support, after I dropped well over a grand on their cards,
just plain _sux_.
I've had their ISA, VLB and PCI cards, and if the support had been
better, I would have gone for the Edge. However, in too many cases to
recount, they have frustrated me. Last time, I had 3 diamond PCI
cards in a row flunk with my P-100 system, and I have just given up on
them. The support for the ISA and VLB cards was poor as well. They
cost me too much time and money. When your margins are slim on
building and selling computers, you need cards that are fast, work,
and are supported excellently.
If Diamond is a leader in the industry *sales*, good for them.
However, I would expect a leader to support their products, and that
those products would just plain *WORK* when you know what you're doing
installing them.
Maybe you had a good experience, but for me, as recently as a month
ago, no such luck. All in all, they have cost me too much money and
time to consider using them for either what I sell or what I service.
I won't use them in my personal machine either.
Perhaps if they *DO* come to my door and apologize, with product that
*WORKS* properly across the majority of platforms, and is *SUPPORTED*
with drivers and technical help that actually is worth a darn, I may
think about using them someday. But until then, I will keep sharing
my poor experiences with Diamond with others. I don't have an axe to
grind with Diamond. Its just the truth.
I don't need to put a dent in their market. They do it themselves
very nicely. They may be making good money today, but sooner or later
the customers will figure it out.
Buy the latest Diamond card. Go right ahead. But don't expect
support the *minute* they come out with a new card. At that point,
you are no longer a customer to be served, just a problem orphan to be
handled- and that handling, from my experience, will be poor.
Diamond has put technology and their latest buck before customer
needs. I don't have to fry 'em. *ANY* company that does that will,
sooner or later, fall of its own weight. Maybe not today, maybe not
tomorrow, but it will happen.
If they don't change their thinking radically, partner... you'll be
posting a message just like this a few months from now. And I'll be
there to read it and silently nod.
Ciao.
Ron Johnson
My sentiments exactly!
Joe Hachem
>Do you realize that 95+% of Diamond customers are satisfied with
>their product....you have no clue.
More intelligent commentary from the .edu domains. You might want to
read a bit in the video newsgroup, "jdm", before spouting off. You
may just realize that it's closer to 95% that are UNsatisfied.
J.H.
Dave Siegrist
When Diamond was still answering the phones THEY told me the drivers
did not work with WINDOSE95 so I guess your wrong about Diamond, they
don't support their customers. I have checked their FTP site regularly
for Viper Drivers newer than May95 beta, they don't exist. The Viper
may be an older product, but so is my ATI mach32 and it worked from
the first day I had 95. I would like to see this list of 95% satified
customers, don't think it exists.
--
+======================================+
| Dave ~-~ |
| Siegrist (@ @) c...@ddi.digital.net |
+========o000(_)000o===================+
kyr...@zenon.logos.hol.gr
>"jdm." <jdma...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>When Diamond was still answering the phones THEY told me the drivers
>did not work with WINDOSE95 so I guess your wrong about Diamond, they
>don't support their customers. I have checked their FTP site regularly
>for Viper Drivers newer than May95 beta, they don't exist. The Viper
>may be an older product, but so is my ATI mach32 and it worked from
>the first day I had 95. I would like to see this list of 95% satified
>customers, don't think it exists.
I am waiting for Drivers for Diamond Stealth 64 Video for Windows 95
since Windows' Beta Version. They said they will release them in
November.. guess they are late... not only that but they don't even
answer to my e-mails about it!
Roger A. Kendall
For some reason, they answered mine (maybe because we have a zillion
cards)...anyway...maybe in February is the current reply!!!
Ali Ersheid
supplied wasn't worth the trouble. I just bought a new card.
Diamond...Never again!
--
__________________________________________________________________________
01000001 01101100 01101001
01000101 01110010 01110011 01101000 01100101 01101001 01100100
P. O. Box 51702 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 408.375.8066
E-Mail: 68...@mgs.com WWW:
http://www.scruznet.com/~abstract/ali.htm
Gary Hammer
:c...@digital.net (Dave Siegrist) wrote:
:
:>"jdm." <jdma...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
:
:>When Diamond was still answering the phones THEY told me the drivers
:>did not work with WINDOSE95 so I guess your wrong about Diamond, they
:>don't support their customers. I have checked their FTP site regularly
:>for Viper Drivers newer than May95 beta, they don't exist. The Viper
:>may be an older product, but so is my ATI mach32 and it worked from
:>the first day I had 95. I would like to see this list of 95% satified
:>customers, don't think it exists.
:
:
:
:I am waiting for Drivers for Diamond Stealth 64 Video for Windows 95
:since Windows' Beta Version. They said they will release them in
:November.. guess they are late... not only that but they don't even
:answer to my e-mails about it!
For their prompt service, see the file dates on any of the OS/2 drivers.
Or NT drivers.
Rule #1- Get 1 or 2 driver sets for a new card. Then ignore it. Hopefully
frustrated users will buy our newest card.
Rule #2- We have a reputation from past days. Make money off it before the
public catches on.
Rule #3- Make sure you have a "sliding delivery window". It works for
Microsoft.
It seems that 32 bit drivers really baffle the Hell out of Diamond.
The Win 3.x drivers seem to come out every other week. The 32 bit drivers
every 8 months if that. Some of them are a year old!
They seem to be too damn busy with CDs and sound cards. Plus they are rumored
to be making a run at Hayes. "Drivers for video cards? What's the stock
symbol"?
I will be going with Matrox or maybe #9 when Santa comes down the T-1 this
year. Sorry Diamond, my money will be ready for you, um, maybe in 1997...
Cyrus K. Mehta
I don't know if this will help anyone, but I was able to recently
get my monitor to 1024x768(with any reasonable resolution and color) by
using the updated Diamond Stealth drivers on the Micro$oft web page. If
I remember correctly the MS CD for win95 has version 4.0 drivers, while
the updates were 4.1. It certainly made a difference in my display, but
I had a new Stealth 64bit with 2DRAM to begin with, now it is somewhat
better.
Elizabeth B. Nguyen (gt7...@acme.gatech.edu) wrote:
: to...@pfmedia.demon.co.uk (Tony Lonorgan) wrote:
: >Hi
: I've had no trouble in the sense that my windows display looks find,
kyr...@zenon.logos.hol.gr
>HI,
>: liz
Who told you that it doesn't run perfectly? It does! But if you have
Diamond Stealth 64 VIDEO VRAM which is supposed to support DCI and
play AVIs at 1024x768 24bit colour with hardware scaling which is not
supported by any drivers other than 3.1's then you have a problem
because you payed 100 pounds more just for this feature!
Dan Mitton
>
> To change resolutions and actually make it work on Win 95 with
> a Diamond Stealth, set the resolution you want in Win 95 THEN
> restart the computer.
>
> You should previously have run the DOS resolution/refresh rate
> setting program and chosen a setting which makes your monitor run at
> the required res and refresh rate. The setup prog should load a
> driver in your autoexec.bat
>
> This driver will only work if you load windows already set to the
> resolution you want.
OK, I've seen references to S64DMODE, GO95, new drivers, etc. I'm lost!
Does anyone have a definitive answer (for now, until the new drivers) of
what I need, where to get it and how to use it!??
I'm running a Stealth 64 DRAM in 1024x786x64k.
Thanks in advance!!!!
Dan Mitton
dj...@ntrs.com
Iskandar Taib
> Someone wrote:
>>I have a 2mb diamomd stealth32 and thing is not worth a piece of
>>*shit* since I have upgraded to win95".
>
>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
>to fare well regardless of OS?
Hmm..
I still use my 1991 Diamond Speedstar ^_^
Yeah, its a little slow, but its as fast as it was when I bought
it.. about 4 times faster than the contemporary Trident 8900s!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Elizabeth B. Nguyen
>>: but I'm extremely pissed off about the lack of driver support. Yes,
>>: I get the proper refresh rate, and windows runs fine on my P90 w/
>>: 16MB, but I have an expensive video card sitting in my machine
>>: that's performing basically no functions beyond those that any
>>: $50 card could do. I'll never buy Diamond again, that's for damn
>>: sure. When I buy 3D card it definitely won't be their dysfunctional
>>: blunt Edge.
>>: liz
>you think they don't know this problem exists. The point is that they
>don't get anything out of it by making new drivers because you don't
>pay for them!
They do get something out of it, though. They get my continued
patronage. If they expect support from me as a future customer,
then I expect support from them as a current customer.
Making great products is how you attract new customers. Supporting
those products is how you keep the ones you already have.
liz
Andy Armstrong
Robbie Longworth
>Matrox? Head and shoulders? Do some research; I've looked
>at tons of benchmark figures and this is not true.
>Obviously your "trademark" words will not cut it....some
>benchmark numbers, please.
The Millenium does outperform all cards in its class, there was a
survey in PC Magazine a bit ago, out of about 8 different modes, it
only got beaten in 1 mode, by the Diamond Stealth. Does anyone know if
there is any software support for all the 3D hardware it`s got tho`?
And on That Bombshell..
Robbie Longworth (Preston UK)
eb...@dial.pipex.com
Timothy P. Kelley
>In article <30c15668...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
>|> On 2 Dec 1995 07:20:45 GMT, "jdm." <jdma...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>|> >Benchmarks show that the Matrox performs similarly to the S3-968 in Windows,
>|> >but the 968 is faster in DOS.
>|> You can see the Stealth is slightly slower in nearly every VESA mode.
>Well.. the man did say "similarly", didn't he?
No, look above, ha says the S3 is "faster in DOS". I'm not trying to
bury anyone, just trying to get the facts out.
>And what about the price difference?
Prices are about the same, with the Millennium being just slightly cheaper. Here are some
prices from Netex, who have generally really good prices.
Millennium 2MB retail: $309
Millennium 2MB "bulk" (not OEM): $273
Millennium 4MB: $455
Millennium OEM: ??? only Gateway sells these, I think.
Stealth 3240 2MB VRAM: $335
Stealth 3400 4MB VRAM: $478
Stealth 3240 OEM: $260
#9 Imagine 128 8MB VRAM: $1815
Millennium 8MB $923
>And what about XFree86? I would *hate* to buy a 400-500$ card which is
>*slightly* (your words) faster than a 300$ one and that I can't use for
>X11. *can't*, and it's worse than Diamond in Win95!
To use the Millennium with Linux, you have to purchase a commercial X server such as
AcceleratedX from Xinside. (about $99) The performance is supposed to be good (760,000
Xstones)
Unfortunately, Matrox does have some dumb NDA's. I don't know anything about the
performance of the two cards under OS/2. I gather the Millennium isn't too hot under
Warp from reading some of the posts here.
>So, if you say that "performance is not all" when talking about Diamond,
>why don't you say it when talking about non-Diamond cards?
Good point. However, I don't find that the Millennium has any other drawbacks, as Diamond
does. Matrox answers the phone, and they answer email. Their drivers aren't fully worked
out yet, but they're very fast, stable, do have Direct Draw support, and are currently
four months ahead of Diamond. They are putting out driver and BIOS revisions
as necessary (two driver updates and three BIOS updates since August).
Their web page has some very interesting information on uses of video memory,
and other technical issues. Not crap about what corporate takeovers they're attempting.
I would gladly suffer a few Winsplurts for service and reliability if I *had* to;
this doesn't just extend to tech support (which isn't *that* much of an issue to me
personally) - it means I want to buy from a company which *gives a damn* whether my card
works or not, will try to reimburse or replace what I have with something else if
necessary, and won't run me around.
Nor am I fanatically devoted to the Millennium; that sort of nonsense makes me ill.
(go read those GUS vs AWE/Win vs Warp flame wars. I really don't want that) I just think
it is a great buy right now in the $300 - $1000 range if you use Win95 or DOS/Windows.
FWIW, I worked for a mail order vendor a while ago, the Diamond cards were incredibly
popular (even more than they are now, I think) back then. People were calling
constantly calling to tell us their cards were incompatible with the mother boards the
company was selling, which was ridiculous (their problems were usually something else).
It seems the Diamond techs were just telling them that to get them off the phone. The
first thing they did was when a customer called with a problem was ask them "Hmmm...what
chipset does your motherboard use? Oh really? Call your retailer. Thank you". [click]
Markus Reinbold
behauptete Timothy P. Kelley :
[deleted]
>Millennium 2MB "bulk" (not OEM): $273
AFAIK bulk means: without driver discs, without manual, order more than one piece
at the same time
>Millennium OEM: ??? only Gateway sells these, I think.
Compaq sells an OEM version, called QVision 2000, too.
ciao
markus
Tony Chow
> survey in PC Magazine a bit ago, out of about 8 different modes, it
> only got beaten in 1 mode, by the Diamond Stealth. Does anyone know if
> there is any software support for all the 3D hardware it`s got tho`?
>
brought to life. Diamond Edge, on the other hand, uses an engine so
hopelessly proprietory it won't support Microsoft's API.
Tony Chow
Few companies would take your word to heart, Matrox is among them,
Diamond is not. Forget Diamond, you just have to look at the 100+
products they are trying to sell at the same time. It's simply not the
diamond we all wished it was. Now all roads lead to Matrox.
Tony Chow
> >: but I'm extremely pissed off about the lack of driver support. Yes,
> >: I get the proper refresh rate, and windows runs fine on my P90 w/
> >: 16MB, but I have an expensive video card sitting in my machine
> >: that's performing basically no functions beyond those that any
> >: $50 card could do. I'll never buy Diamond again, that's for damn
> >: sure. When I buy 3D card it definitely won't be their dysfunctional
> >: blunt Edge.
>
> >: liz
>
> Diamond Stealth 64 VIDEO VRAM which is supposed to support DCI and
> play AVIs at 1024x768 24bit colour with hardware scaling which is not
> supported by any drivers other than 3.1's then you have a problem
> because you payed 100 pounds more just for this feature!
Diamond could simply write a new driver for the card and reclaim its
functionalities but they ain't doing that. The drivers that people do
get with Windows 95 is written for 3 generations of S3 chips and only
provides barebone functionality. Get Matrox, they seem to care far more
about customer loyalty
Alex Celic
|> On 5 Dec 1995 14:00:07 GMT, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) wrote:
|>
|> >In article <30c15668...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
|>
|> >|> >Benchmarks show that the Matrox performs similarly to the S3-968 in Windows,
|> >|> >but the 968 is faster in DOS.
|>
|> >|> You can see the Stealth is slightly slower in nearly every VESA mode.
|>
|>
|> No, look above, ha says the S3 is "faster in DOS". I'm not trying to
|> bury anyone, just trying to get the facts out.
Sorry, my mistake. I should have read more carefully.
|> >And what about the price difference?
|>
|> Prices are about the same, with the Millennium being just slightly cheaper. Here are some
|> prices from Netex, who have generally really good prices.
[prices deleted]
Wow! Now *this* casts quite a different light on the whole situation.... here,
in Austria, nobody (to my knowledge) sells 2MB versions of Millenium... so,
the difference between 320$ (for Stealth with 2MB) and 550$ (Millenium with 4MB
+ 99$ for X from Xinside) is quite a notable one (yes, I know that you get 2MB
more for the price difference, but I don't need those extra 2MB, so for me, as for
many others, it is not excuse enough).
Of course, not many are interested in X... :-((((
Knowing that Millenium is also available in 2MB version makes it a pretty
interesting choice....
|> >And what about XFree86? I would *hate* to buy a 400-500$ card which is
|> >*slightly* (your words) faster than a 300$ one and that I can't use for
|> >X11. *can't*, and it's worse than Diamond in Win95!
|>
|> To use the Millennium with Linux, you have to purchase a commercial X server such as
|> AcceleratedX from Xinside. (about $99)
Yes, I know. I just wanted to state that if you look for a card for X11
and you go with Millenium, you'll have to pour extra money in it (as you said,
~99$).
I should have mentioned it.
|> The performance is supposed to be good (760,000 Xstones)
|> Unfortunately, Matrox does have some dumb NDA's. I don't know anything about the
|> performance of the two cards under OS/2. I gather the Millennium isn't too hot under
|> Warp from reading some of the posts here.
From what I've heard about Stealth, it's not an OS/2 winner either... :-(
|> >So, if you say that "performance is not all" when talking about Diamond,
|> >why don't you say it when talking about non-Diamond cards?
|>
|> Good point. However, I don't find that the Millennium has any other drawbacks, as Diamond
|> does. Matrox answers the phone, and they answer email.
Ok, this is tech support.
|> Their drivers aren't fully worked out yet, but they're very fast, stable,
|> do have Direct Draw support, and are currently
|> four months ahead of Diamond.
This is a plus, sure. Let's wait and see how the Diamond is going to manage
their drivers... it's not *that* long a waiting! :-)
|> They are putting out driver and BIOS revisions
|> as necessary (two driver updates and three BIOS updates since August).
This is cool... I know that new BIOS releases are a positive thing, and I bet
that *nobody* is going to say something like "Huh, two driver and three BIOS
updates since August ==> Matrox sucks, if they were any good they wouldn't
need so many releases in such a short time". :)))
This is not *exactly* what some guy said a few days ago about Diamond
and 2 free BIOS updates another guy got from them.... and that's my point!
Too many people are just talking crap and they feel that if they say something
crappy about Diamond, zip matter what, nobody is going to fight it. That's the
tone in this group, which is everything else than constructive.
|> Their web page has some very interesting information on uses of video memory,
|> and other technical issues. Not crap about what corporate takeovers they're attempting.
Well... ok.... :))
|> I would gladly suffer a few Winsplurts for service and reliability if I *had* to;
|> this doesn't just extend to tech support (which isn't *that* much of an issue to me
|> personally)
Neither it is to me. Now I got the card (bought it a few weeks ago) and I'm
happy with it. If I weren't lurking here for long enough to learn how to separate
the garbage from real information (whose ratio seems to be extremely bad in this
group), I would have never bought that one!
|> - it means I want to buy from a company which *gives a damn* whether my card
|> works or not, will try to reimburse or replace what I have with something else if
|> necessary, and won't run me around.
That's a good point. If you are an idealist. :)
I mean, if the card doesn't work, I bring it back to the shop where I bought it
and get it replaced. No need bothering with the company.
I'm happy you brought it to the point.
|> Nor am I fanatically devoted to the Millennium; that sort of nonsense makes me ill.
Neither am I to Diamond. I went through that phase in good old "Commodore 64 vs.
Sinclair ZX Spectrum" times... :)
I just want some more fairness. Now the Diamond gets his ass kicked if they send BIOS
updates to their users, if they don't send it, if somebody tries to
connect the modem to COM4, if somebody sees that the Win3.x icons
turn black in hi-res hi-color modes, if the drivers are not ready ("where the
hell are they"), if the drivers are here ("They are crap, anyway"), ...
Some people ask nicely about those things, the most start ranting about Diamond
instantly...
|> (go read those GUS vs AWE/Win vs Warp flame wars. I really don't want that) I just think
|> it is a great buy right now in the $300 - $1000 range if you use Win95 or DOS/Windows.
I fully agree, now that I know there is a 2MB version. I'm happy that
I allready have my card, otherwise I'd have quite a hedache now... :)
|> FWIW, I worked for a mail order vendor a while ago, the Diamond cards were incredibly
|> popular (even more than they are now, I think) back then. People were calling
|> constantly calling to tell us their cards were incompatible with the mother boards the
|> company was selling, which was ridiculous (their problems were usually something else).
|> It seems the Diamond techs were just telling them that to get them off the phone. The
|> first thing they did was when a customer called with a problem was ask them "Hmmm...what
|> chipset does your motherboard use? Oh really? Call your retailer. Thank you". [click]
Ok, let's summarize:
1) novice users shouldn't buy Diamond because of the bad tech support.
2) experienced users (who don't need the tech support) can go with it,
if they don't need Win95 drivers *NOW*, especially if they want the
card for Linux/X (used to be different... now it's ATI that has problems,
not Diamond).
3) It's worth taking a look at the 2MB version of Matrox Millenium as well.
(if one wants to run X: additional 99$).
I hope this does it? :)
Greetings, alex.
Alex Celic
|> "jdm." <jdma...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
|>
|>
|> >Do you realize that 95+% of Diamond customers are satisfied with
|> >their product....you have no clue.
|>
|>
|> More intelligent commentary from the .edu domains.
???????
Now what's this supposed to mean?
Have you seen people joking about .aol and decided to try it yourself
with .edu?
.edu is, after all, where the USENET started from (1979/80, at Duke
University). The rest came afterwards.
|> You might want to
|> read a bit in the video newsgroup, "jdm", before spouting off. You
|> may just realize that it's closer to 95% that are UNsatisfied.
He didn't say 95% of users in the video newsgroup. He said 95% of
DIAMOND CUSTOMERS, which is a *huge* difference. You can't say
that the USENET population is a representative part of the entire
computer-using wolrd, can you?
Now, where he got this number from is, of course, another thing.
But his statement is probably more accurate than yours, otherwise
the Diamond would be out of bussiness for a long time by now.
alex.
Mike J. Scott
Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>In article <30c4f15d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
<SNIP>
>
>|> Their drivers aren't fully worked out yet, but they're very fast, stable,
>|> do have Direct Draw support, and are currently
>|> four months ahead of Diamond.
>
>This is a plus, sure. Let's wait and see how the Diamond is going to manage
>their drivers... it's not *that* long a waiting! :-)
Yes but wait until the next release date comes and goes - remember Chicago?
>
>Neither it is to me. Now I got the card (bought it a few weeks ago) and I'm
>happy with it. If I weren't lurking here for long enough to learn how to separate
>the garbage from real information (whose ratio seems to be extremely bad in this
>group), I would have never bought that one!
Writing the FAQ was an attempt to lower noise levels. Unsuccessful, I
think :-(
>
>Neither am I to Diamond. I went through that phase in good old "Commodore 64 vs.
>Sinclair ZX Spectrum" times... :)
Oh come on. It's no contest. The C64 was by far better . . . :-)
>I just want some more fairness. Now the Diamond gets his ass kicked if they send BIOS
>updates to their users, if they don't send it, if somebody tries to
>connect the modem to COM4, if somebody sees that the Win3.x icons
>turn black in hi-res hi-color modes, if the drivers are not ready ("where the
>hell are they"), if the drivers are here ("They are crap, anyway"), ...
>
>Some people ask nicely about those things, the most start ranting about Diamond
>instantly...
I haven't seen folks blaming Diamond for the COM4 or icons problems listed
above but they're due to cheapo serial cards and Microsoft respectively.
>1) novice users shouldn't buy Diamond because of the bad tech support.
Unless they're buying from a vendor who is willing and able to provide support.
>
>2) experienced users (who don't need the tech support) can go with it,
> if they don't need Win95 drivers *NOW*, especially if they want the
> card for Linux/X (used to be different... now it's ATI that has problems,
> not Diamond).
Not sure what you mean. ATI's X drivers are great. There are a couple of
minor bugs with their latest Win95 drivers, though.
>I hope this does it? :)
Hope so.
ciao,
--
Michael J. Scott R.R.I., U of Western Ontario
mjs...@heartlab.rri.uwo.ca 'Need a good valve job?'
PC Video Hardware FAQ: http://www.heartlab.rri.uwo.ca/videofaq.html
############### Illegitimus non tatum carborundum. ##############
Snoz
>ge...@ns1.inxpress.net (Grady E. Miller) wrote:
>>Who'd you blow for that kind of support? 90% of the support stories I've
>>heard about Diamond (and that would be alot, since I'm a support engineer
>>for a leading operating system (guess... :) ) have all been NIGHTMARES!!!
>>On top of that, I have a Stealth 64 that I've been trying to get decent
>>drivers for FOREVER (2 megs of VRAM...is this card obsolete? I think not,
>>although since Diamond has their oh so f*cked up Edge 3D out, they might say
>>different).
>>
>>Diamond sucks, sucks, sucks. I will never buy another Diamond product, and
>>there are several other companies (Gravis among them) that I pretty much feel
>>the same about.
>>
>
>You too???? I have a Brand New Diamond stealth 64 with 2MB VRAM that will
>only display 16 colors!!! And when I call Diamond, all I get is an
>answering machine. AND they will NOT return my messages!! The system I am
>installing it on is a Intel Pentium 100 with Tritor Chipset - one of the
>best in the industry. I am thinking about taking the piece of &^%$#@@!
>back!
>
>B. Rainey
I had the same problem as you. Only 16 colours in all video modes.
Checking the back of the card, I noticed a small "conductor" or
something had broken off. Luckily, this was lodged in between the PCI
slots on my Triton motherboard (mine's a P90 CPU).
I cellotaped the conductor back on the board and it now works fine. It
will need soldering soon though.
Check your card to see if the same thing has happened.
______________________________________________________________________
...the eastern sky was aglow with the first light of the rising sun...
spilling over the horizon now the first rays were touching the hills.
Timothy P. Kelley
>In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) writes:
>|> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
>|> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
>|> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>|> |> >In article <30c4f15d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
>|> |> Yes but wait until the next release date comes and goes - remember Chicago?
>|>
>|> Could be, could be....
>|>
>|> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
>|> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
>|> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
>|> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
>
>Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the trashing
>of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond outperforms
>the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
Well, yeah, but it is $140 cheaper ... how does the Hercules S3 968 card fare against it?
Alex Celic
|> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
|> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
|> >
|> >|> Their drivers aren't fully worked out yet, but they're very fast, stable,
|> >|> do have Direct Draw support, and are currently
|> >|> four months ahead of Diamond.
|> >
|> >This is a plus, sure. Let's wait and see how the Diamond is going to manage
|> >their drivers... it's not *that* long a waiting! :-)
|>
Could be, could be....
But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
BTW, Chicago? You mean, this Micro$oft thingy? Yes, but we're talking here
about *Diamond*, not Micro$oft! :))))
(Hey, no flames please - I put the smileys, didn't I? :) )
|> >Neither it is to me. Now I got the card (bought it a few weeks ago) and I'm
|> >happy with it. If I weren't lurking here for long enough to learn how to separate
|> >the garbage from real information (whose ratio seems to be extremely bad in this
|> >group), I would have never bought that one!
|>
|> Writing the FAQ was an attempt to lower noise levels. Unsuccessful, I
|> think :-(
Yes... well, that's the problem in the most groups I've seen... :-(
|> >Neither am I to Diamond. I went through that phase in good old "Commodore 64 vs.
|> >Sinclair ZX Spectrum" times... :)
|>
|> Oh come on. It's no contest. The C64 was by far better . . . :-)
You know what??? WE BETTER CARRY THIS OUT IN PRIVATE MAIL, OK???? :)))))))))))))))
|> >I just want some more fairness. Now the Diamond gets his ass kicked if they send BIOS
|> >updates to their users, if they don't send it, if somebody tries to
|> >connect the modem to COM4, if somebody sees that the Win3.x icons
|> >turn black in hi-res hi-color modes, if the drivers are not ready ("where the
|> >hell are they"), if the drivers are here ("They are crap, anyway"), ...
|> >
|> >Some people ask nicely about those things, the most start ranting about Diamond
|> >instantly...
|>
|> I haven't seen folks blaming Diamond for the COM4 or icons problems listed
|> above but they're due to cheapo serial cards and Microsoft respectively.
I have seen quite a few of them (though not in the last week or two). Unfortunatelly,
I don't have those posts (or names) handy - I never save old posts... :-(
|> >1) novice users shouldn't buy Diamond because of the bad tech support.
|>
|> Unless they're buying from a vendor who is willing and able to provide support.
Correct.
|> >2) experienced users (who don't need the tech support) can go with it,
|> > if they don't need Win95 drivers *NOW*, especially if they want the
|> > card for Linux/X (used to be different... now it's ATI that has problems,
|> > not Diamond).
|>
|> Not sure what you mean. ATI's X drivers are great. There are a couple of
|> minor bugs with their latest Win95 drivers, though.
I just said what I read in *.linux.x about new ATI cards. It seems that ATI
has changed something about their chipset (maybe even a few times), so that the
support for new cards is still wacky. I can't say if this is 100% correct, of
course...
Greetings, alex.
David Thompson
>
>But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
>to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
>Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
>If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
I had a Diamond Stealth 64 DRAM and with the only drivers currently
available for Win 95, got a 7.68 in Winbench 95 on my P100 with 16 megs.
The Hercules Stingray scored a 15.2 in Win 95 on the same machine. To me, it
looks as if the Stingray outperformed the Stealth by ~100%!
/dt
Eric D. Vasbinder
person who tried their original Viper VRAM when it first came out a few
years back, I liked the performance, but the drivers were crappy and
buggier than heck, so it went back with the computer system. Later, I
made a serious mistake, I had purchased a Matrox MGA Impression Plus,
(which was a wonderful card for Windows BTW), but I noticed that my DOS
game play was choppy, so I thought that it might be the reputation of low
DOS game performance and I took the card back and got a Diamond Stealth
64 VRAM (no Video features BTW). BIGGEST MISTAKE I've ever made!
Now that I've moved up to NT and that '95 has come out, I've
noticed NO drivers for the 964-based Stealth 64 VRAM! EVER! And that's
NOT an outdated card. It SHOULD be supported with new drivers for
currently released operating systems, but it's not. The ones for this
card with OS/2 are also a pain as they were designed for OS/2 2.1 and are
almost impossible to easily install.
I've been listening to others and have come to the conclusion
that Diamond, like Conner Peripherals, has: very bad tech support, low R
& D initiative, undifferentiated hardware, and above all else, and
attitude that the customer is not an IMPORTANT factor in their business.
I'm sorry Diamond, but with this callous attitude, you WILL lose present
present and future customers when they go to the competition, like ATI
and Matrox especially. Customer SERVICE!
REMEMBER THIS DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA INC! It is much more expensive
to create a NEW customer than it is to KEEP one you already have! Bad PR
does not give a company success!
Thank you for your time,
Eric D. Vasbinder
In article <4a2m88$f...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu says...
--
*******************************************************************
Eric D. Vasbinder
"Life is a Voyage and YOU are the Captain."
Check out my web page--> http://www.orst.edu/~vasbinde
OR Email me--> vasb...@ucs.orst.edu
Email here if ucs.orst.edu is down--> vase...@tigger.bus.orst.edu
*******************************************************************
Alex Celic
|> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
|> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
|> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
|>
|> Could be, could be....
|>
|> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
|> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
|> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the trashing
of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond outperforms
the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
alex.
Paul K
>
> In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex
Celic) writes:
> |> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
> |> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
> |> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
remember Chicago?
> |>
> |> Could be, could be....
> |>
> |> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that
bad. According
> |> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers
outperforms the
> |> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench
3.1).
> |> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond
drivers.
>
> Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the
trashing
> of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond
outperforms
> the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
>
> alex.
three high-quality cards, all PCI, and by far the ATI product was far
superior to either the Diamond and Matrox cards. The drivers were more
stable and robust, and acceleration was top-notch. Plus, ATI hasn't
even released their new product line which should kick some butt with
their use of SGRAM and SDRAM (Note : no one in the industry is using
these types of RAM, and according to semiconductor mags, SGRAM is far
superior to anything out there).
Paul K.
Fanch
|> Few companies would take your word to heart, Matrox is among them,
|> Diamond is not. Forget Diamond, you just have to look at the 100+
|> products they are trying to sell at the same time. It's simply not the
|> diamond we all wished it was. Now all roads lead to Matrox.
All roads? Funny, I'm using linux and I haven't seen any driver for X11 by
Matrox. I won't buy any Matrox as long as it won't support it. So far, I'm glad
with my Diamond. Moreover, with all I have seen about Win95, I don't feel like
installing on my computer.
|> As soon as Direct3D becomes available, Millenium's 3D potential will be
|> brought to life. Diamond Edge, on the other hand, uses an engine so
|> hopelessly proprietory it won't support Microsoft's API.
Waouhhh! Millenium should be better than 3D Edge under 95? I'm glad to know! :-)
The Edge looks like it has a graphic chip more interesting than the Millenium's
one. The Millenium only knows standarts 3D functions, when you'll have to do
textures, it will be your CPU work. On the other hand, an API purpose is to offer
an interface. Somes functions will use the hardware, others will be softwares.
And it looks like the Edge has more hardware-defined functions than the
Millenium.
Fanch
David Greer
Anders Holmung
>>HI,
>>: liz
>you think they don't know this problem exists. The point is that they
>don't get anything out of it by making new drivers because you don't
>pay for them!
They maby not get any monney from the pressent card I own, but they
might be my choise the next time a byes a new card, but with the
pressent attitude the will newer sell me a new card !!!!!!!!!!!!
/Anders
van Loo
>
>to...@pfmedia.demon.co.uk (Tony Lonorgan) wrote:
>
>>Hi
>> Just got to put my two pence worth into this discussion. Am I
>>the only one to get a Stealth 64 DRAM (2MB) to work properley with
>>Win95 ?. I am running perfectly well at 1024x768 in 64K colours, with
>>a refresh rate of 70HZ. If you use the drivers in the
>>drivers/display/diamond directory on the CD the refresh rates of
>>monitor type you selected will be passed on to the card (I have an ADI
>>Microscan 4V). The only thing that pisses me off is that I still need
>>to use S64DMODE.EXE to center the screen, as otherwise it is to far
>>out to pull in with the monitors control own controls. I am a bit
>>disturbed about the comments that the Win 95 drivers are not
>>accelerated, but it seems fast enough to me (I have a 16MB P75).
>>Cheers Tony.
>
>I've had no trouble in the sense that my windows display looks find,
>but I'm extremely pissed off about the lack of driver support. Yes,
>I get the proper refresh rate, and windows runs fine on my P90 w/
>16MB, but I have an expensive video card sitting in my machine
>that's performing basically no functions beyond those that any
>$50 card could do. I'll never buy Diamond again, that's for damn
>sure. When I buy 3D card it definitely won't be their dysfunctional
>blunt Edge.
>
>liz
>
>
with 16 MB and it's running terribly slow at 1024x768 in 16.7M colour.
At this moment i'm able to realize only 80Hz NI, which is far under the
maximum of the 100Hz NI that I should be able to get in this
resolution (both monitor and video card support this, I have a
Liyama Vision Master 17 which is capable of 107Hz NI).
Also the Win95 drivers for the Stealth 64 Video VRAM do not allow
1600x1200 64K or 1280x1024 16.7M. Win 3.11 was faster.
According to Diamond new drivers for Win95 will be available in January.
Let's hope their drivers are faster!
Sander (l...@student.tn.tudelft.nl)
Albert Ramirez Jr.
: In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at says...
: >
: >But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
: >to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
: >Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
: >If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
: I had a Diamond Stealth 64 DRAM and with the only drivers currently
: available for Win 95, got a 7.68 in Winbench 95 on my P100 with 16 megs.
: The Hercules Stingray scored a 15.2 in Win 95 on the same machine. To me, it
: looks as if the Stingray outperformed the Stealth by ~100%!
: /dt
I used the drivers that came with my stealth video 2001 and got a score of 18
on winbench. In the Lanmark speed test I get a score of 2500!
Dylan Rhodes
>On 7 Dec 1995 12:47:02 GMT, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) wrote:
>>In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) writes:
>>|> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
>>|> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
>>|> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>|> |> >In article <30c4f15d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
>>|> |> Yes but wait until the next release date comes and goes - remember Chicago?
>>|>
>>|> Could be, could be....
>>|>
>>|> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
>>|> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
>>|> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
>>|> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
>>
>>Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the trashing
>>of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond outperforms
>>the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
>Well, yeah, but it is $140 cheaper ... how does the Hercules S3 968 card fare against it?
I promised myself I wouldn't jump in on this thread (which obviously
started as a troll), but you've made an excellent point. If our
low-end, inexpensive DRAM cards were as good as other vendors
high-end, VRAM cards, we wouldn't need to offer a Vision968 product of
our own!
It's quite simple: under Windows 95, pick any of our current products
and compare it to the equivalent Diamond Multimedia product using the
same chipset (Vision968, Trio64, ARK2000, and so on) using the latest
publicly available driver for each product -- and our product will
give you a higher score under Winbench 96, Winstone 96, or Speedy.
(our FTP hits always jump significantly after I point this out, most
likely to the chagrin of our own customers, so here's my usual
reminder: our drivers won't work on Diamond products, so please don't
download them. If you have a Diamond product, just be patient.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Timothy P. Kelley E-mail:tke...@ix.netcom.com
>
>"The three things were damnably clever constructions of their kind,
>and were furnished with ingenious mettalic clamps to attach them to
>organic developments of which I dare not form any conjecture."
> -H.P. Lovecraft
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Dylan Rhodes: Product Manager, Hercules Computer Technology
= drh...@hercules.com or www.hercules.com
= New toll-free support! See our web site for details.
Paul K
>
> >>>>I have a 2mb diamomd stealth32 and thing is not worth a piece of
> >>>>*shit* since I have upgraded to win95".
> >>>
> >>>Well, this card is obsolete. How can you expect a shitty card
> >>>to fare well regardless of OS?
> >>
> >>Hmm..
> >>
> >>I still use my 1991 Diamond Speedstar ^_^
> >>
>
a
> year ago, another with a Diamond SpeedStar Pro VLB purchased over two years
> ago.
> While I understand Diamond not updating the SpeedStar Pro drivers for Win95
> (although I disagree with it), I can't believe that they are not updating
the
> drivers for my Stealth 32. I chose Diamond over other clone boards because
of
> the customer service, and until now have been satisfied (if not astonished)
> with it.
> When I contacted the technical support staff two weeks ago I was told that
> these drivers, complete with DirectX support, would be out in mid-December.
> When I contacted them again today, I was told that these cards are not
going to
> be updated on Windows 95.
> I hope someone at Diamond is reading this thread, because I can no longer
> recommend Diamond products, or purchase them where I work, if they are
going to
> be rendered obsolete BY THE MANUFACTURER in this short a time.
>
> Jim
I have to say this much, I pity all those owners of Diamond products. I
used to own a Stealth 64 myself. The drivers they provide are unstable, tech
support is unknowledgeable (at least from my own experience), and their
products do not perform all that great under Win 95 even with their updated
drivers. On the other hand, I am now the proud owner of two ATI cards
(Graphics Xpression (486) and Graphics Pro Turbo (Pentium)), and the cards
operate flawlessly. The drivers they provide are stable, and ATI constantly
updates to provide their customers with performance enhancements. Heck, their
ATI software MPEG players provides better video quality than some hardware
MPEG solutions such as Sigma Designs RealMagic (at least from what I have
seen of the Sigma Designs in side by side comparisons). I can't wait until
ATI comes out with their 3D Rage accelerator (and from initial reports this
product will make the EDGE and 3D Blaster look like the dustbin toys of
yesteryear).
Paul K
Christopher M Cooney (CS)
: Diamond will never get another penny from me --- Daveg
ditto that! -chris
Timothy P. Kelley
> I have to give my two cents. Diamond does not rule. I have owned
>three high-quality cards, all PCI, and by far the ATI product was far
>superior to either the Diamond and Matrox cards. The drivers were more
>stable and robust, and acceleration was top-notch. Plus, ATI hasn't
>even released their new product line which should kick some butt with
>their use of SGRAM and SDRAM (Note : no one in the industry is using
>these types of RAM, and according to semiconductor mags, SGRAM is far
>superior to anything out there).
It's silly to judge a companies entire product line by one card from each.
SGRAM and SDRAM aren't capable of the things WRAM can do.
Neither SGRAM or SDRAM are dual ported, so it can't be read and written to
simultaneously, as WRAM; nor do they have any built in functions to accelerate graphics,
as does WRAM.
James Robbins
Harold Kramus
>
> Alex Celic wrote:
> >
> > In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at
(Alex
> Celic) writes:
> > |> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
> mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
> > |> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
> > |> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
> tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
> remember Chicago?
> > |>
> > |> Could be, could be....
> > |>
> > |> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that
> bad. According
> > |> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers
> outperforms the
> > |> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50%
(WinBench
> 3.1).
> > |> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the
Diamond
> drivers.
> >
> > Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the
> trashing
> > of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond
> outperforms
> > the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
> >
>
> I have to give my two cents. Diamond does not rule. I have owned
> three high-quality cards, all PCI, and by far the ATI product was far
> superior to either the Diamond and Matrox cards. The drivers were
more
> stable and robust, and acceleration was top-notch. Plus, ATI hasn't
> even released their new product line which should kick some butt with
> their use of SGRAM and SDRAM (Note : no one in the industry is using
> these types of RAM, and according to semiconductor mags, SGRAM is far
> superior to anything out there).
>
I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and have
nothing but great things to say about their card. I have been reading
that ATI will be releasing a 3D accelerator called 3D RAGE sometime in
January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had nothing
but problems with that card running Win 3.11, so I exchanged for ATI
Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
Harold Kramus
I checked out the ATI
> web site the other day, and noticed that they will be revamping their whole
> product line with a slew of new components. Their 3D Rage accelerator looks
> like a winner (at least technically speaking), and it appears ATI is not
> making the same mistake as Diamond or Creative Labs by rushing a product to
> the consumer when no Direct 3D drivers are available, and the number of
> software titles that incorporate 3D API's are virtually non-existent at
this
> point in time. Owners of these new 3D cards will be disappointed when they
> realize they purchased a product that is obsolete for 3D Gaming, once the
> titles starting spilling over to the market.
>
> Dave.
I also viewed the ATI Page the other day, and their 3D Rage card looks
very promising. The press release mentioned a lot of features that the Edge
or 3D Blaster do not have. I own a Graphics Pro Turbo, and have been running
Win 95 with no problems whatsoever. I definitely will look into the ATI 3D
Rage once it becomes available because of their great reputation for
producing quality products.
Harold Kramus
"He Shoots, He Scores"
Alex Celic
|> In article <30C585...@ucla.edu>, Tony Chow <gree...@ucla.edu> writes:
|> |> Few companies would take your word to heart, Matrox is among them,
|> |> Diamond is not. Forget Diamond, you just have to look at the 100+
|> |> products they are trying to sell at the same time. It's simply not the
|> |> diamond we all wished it was. Now all roads lead to Matrox.
|>
|> All roads? Funny, I'm using linux and I haven't seen any driver for X11 by
|> Matrox. I won't buy any Matrox as long as it won't support it. So far, I'm glad
|> with my Diamond. Moreover, with all I have seen about Win95, I don't feel like
|> installing on my computer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Word Of Wisdom! :)
alex.
Chang-Hua Chen
> nothing but great things to say about their card. I have been reading
> that ATI will be releasing a 3D accelerator called 3D RAGE sometime in
> January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had nothing
> but problems with that card running Win 3.11, so I exchanged for ATI
> Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
> graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
I also own an ATI March 64 Graphic Pro for over a year, and very please
with its performance. I know that a lot people like Diamond speedstar,
which include my dealer(they push very hard on the Diamond card.) But my
prior experience with Diamond speedstar VLB card is less inspiring at
best. I like the ATI tech. suuport and windows drive, I will also check the
new ATI 3D card as they come out.
Chang-Hua
cc...@nova.umuc.edu
David Karson
>
>
> I have to say this much, I pity all those owners of Diamond products.
I
> used to own a Stealth 64 myself. The drivers they provide are unstable,
tech
> support is unknowledgeable (at least from my own experience), and their
> products do not perform all that great under Win 95 even with their updated
> drivers. On the other hand, I am now the proud owner of two ATI cards
> (Graphics Xpression (486) and Graphics Pro Turbo (Pentium)), and the cards
> operate flawlessly. The drivers they provide are stable, and ATI constantly
> updates to provide their customers with performance enhancements. Heck,
their
> ATI software MPEG players provides better video quality than some hardware
> MPEG solutions such as Sigma Designs RealMagic (at least from what I have
> seen of the Sigma Designs in side by side comparisons). I can't wait until
> ATI comes out with their 3D Rage accelerator (and from initial reports this
> product will make the EDGE and 3D Blaster look like the dustbin toys of
> yesteryear).
>
> Paul K
I would have to agree with you 100%. I used to own a Diamond 32, and
constantly had problems. I have a couple of friends that own Diamond products
and they have voiced their displeasure on a number of occasions. To be fair,
their products are not all that bad but I find that ATI Technologies, and
even Matrox have more stable products. I own an ATI Graphics Xpression and
have not experienced one single problem under Win 3.11 or Win 95. Their MPEG
player is amazing as long as you have a P 75 or higher. I checked out the ATI
Harold Kramus
called the Arcade Rage. It comes with Mortal Kombat III for Win 95, and two
other games that I can't remember off hand. It looks really promising, and
having been an owner of ATI product I will definitely take a close look at
the Arcade Rage as well as their 3D Rage card. Check out their web site,
they have some information on their 3D card under the Public Relations
section. http://www.atitech.ca
Later....
David Thompson
>
>David Thompson (dea...@clark.net) wrote:
: I had a Diamond Stealth 64 DRAM and with the only drivers currently
: available for Win 95, got a 7.68 in Winbench 95 on my P100 with 16 megs.
: The Hercules Stingray scored a 15.2 in Win 95 on the same machine. To me, it
: looks as if the Stingray outperformed the Stealth by ~100%!
: /dt
>I used the drivers that came with my stealth video 2001 and got a score of 18
>on winbench. In the Lanmark speed test I get a score of 2500!
I was testing in 800x600, 256 color mode. The Stingray uses the Ark 2000
chipset, and the Stealth Video uses either the Vision868 or 968 depending on
whether you have the DRAM or VRAM versions, so it is not really an accurate
comparison. I was comparing the Stingray to the Stealth Graphics 2001, which
also uses the Ark 2000 chipset. Both cards were the 2 meg DRAM versions, and
both tested in the same resolution on the same machine.
/dt
Dave Jonnson
interesting, it comes with Mortal Kombat III for Win 95, Super Bubsy,
and Space Rox. Also, I have owned a Graphic Pro Turbo for over 7 months
now and have not any major problems. Their tech support through e-mail
has been prompt and they have solved any minor problems that I have had
quite efficiently. I see that ATI is also coming out with a 3D card
sometime in January or February. Looks very interesting.
Alex Celic
|> tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) wrote:
|>
|>
|> >>In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) writes:
|> >>|> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
|> >>|> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
|> >>|> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
|> >>|> |> >In article <30c4f15d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
|> >>|> |> Yes but wait until the next release date comes and goes - remember Chicago?
|> >>|>
|> >>|> Could be, could be....
|> >>|>
|> >>|> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
|> >>|> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
|> >>|> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
|> >>|> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
|> >>
|> >>Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the trashing
|> >>of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond outperforms
|> >>the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
|>
|>
|> I promised myself I wouldn't jump in on this thread (which obviously
|> started as a troll), but you've made an excellent point. If our
|> low-end, inexpensive DRAM cards were as good as other vendors
|> high-end, VRAM cards, we wouldn't need to offer a Vision968 product of
|> our own!
Ok, that's it. I back off from this thread. It's meaningless.
Dylan, at first I thought that it's obvious that I wasn't trying to say "Hey, look,
DS64V is better than Herc. Stingray" (it would be pretty stupid of me, of course).
Then Timothy posted his followup and I saw that the real meaning of my post
was not clear (or that the Timothy holds me for an idiot, which I hope is not the
case). So, I wrote another post in response. Now I see that you are replying to
the original one!
So, if even *you* choose to pick only the parts you can poke fun at,
it can only mean one of the following:
1) The USENET is not the thing I thought it were (at least this group).
In ~2.5 years I'm around here I picked the feeling that the real meaning
of the USENET is to help each other and to discuss things in a *productive*
way.
2) My english is that bad, that I can't make my point even if I try it
for a 100 years (funny, nobody thold me that before... but, it could be).
3) I realy *am* a stupid idiot, so I got everything wrong (well... I don't
belive this, but I had to put it in, just as a possibility :-) )
If any of the above cases is true, it would be better for me to back off.
If somebody can see something else, I'd appreciate the tip.
Good bye, alex.
PS. If you can't find the followup I was referring to, I'd be happy to
mail it to you.
David Thompson
>
>case). So, I wrote another post in response. Now I see that you are replying
to
>the original one!
>
>So, if even *you* choose to pick only the parts you can poke fun at,
>it can only mean one of the following:
Dear Alex:
I have been following this thread from the very beginning. If the point of
your original post was lost, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what was your
original point? For someone who has been around for ~2.5 years, you should
realize that finer points of tone or meaning are often lost in a 7 or 8 line
email message or Usenet posting. Also, an experienced poster such as yourself
by now should be enamored against misinterpretation, as it is commonplace on
the Internet, and not take it personally. I doubt Dylan was poking fun at your
original message, only at the direction that this thread has taken. Clarifying
your position would be the best way to prevent misunderstanding.
thanks.
/dt
Christopher M Cooney (CS)
i always wondered what that extra money got...
the prices i saw were a bit out of my range, though, so i got
a generic s3 card...
-chris
Timothy P. Kelley
>av...@netvision.net.il (Alex Oren) wrote:
>>Rule #2:
>> Even if we do occationaly write a driver, it will be slow and buggy.
Actually, most of the genuine problems with Diamonds drivers
aren't that they're slow. (usually they're very fast).
the problem is that they tweak the card so much just to get the extra 2-5%
performance edge over other products that it causes problems.
STRIDER
but put my .02 in on this as I am a very unhappy diamond stealth (2mb
vram) owner. Diamond cards have a bug in them ... the hex address
cascades into the com4 port's address, making it useless.
Have been back and forth with them and their lame, work-around,
non-helpful answers ... Do yourself a favor and return your diamond and
get a no. 9 ... at least their S-3 series states in advance that this is
this problem ...
--==Strider==--
Sysop ~ The Netherworld BBS (703) 471-6265
Ever wondered why no one ever fired at Wonder Woman with a shotgun?
Kelly Fors
>
> Dunno what this thread is doing in the Doom2 newsgroup, but I can't
help
> but put my .02 in on this as I am a very unhappy diamond stealth (2mb
> vram) owner. Diamond cards have a bug in them ... the hex address
> cascades into the com4 port's address, making it useless.
>
> Have been back and forth with them and their lame, work-around,
> non-helpful answers ... Do yourself a favor and return your diamond
and
> get a no. 9 ... at least their S-3 series states in advance that
this is
> this problem ...
Personally, I have always recommended ATI cards to friends who are
looking to upgrade. Their tech support has always been helpful, and the
Graphics Xpression I own is very stable under Win 95. Heck, I am even
considering the new 3D card that they have released. I can't remember
the name but it looks really interesting.
Kelly.
My .02
Alex Oren
(see subject line)
Rule #1:
We do not write drivers for our cards.
Rule #2:
Even if we do occationaly write a driver, it will be slow and buggy.
Rule #3:
Customer support? What's that?
Rule #4:
Customer sattisfaction? You gotta be kidding!
Have fun,
Alex
kyr...@zenon.logos.hol.gr
>(see subject line)
Addition:
Rule #5:
We will not answer to e-mails regarding drivers for out Graphics
Cards.
Stephen Heaslip
>av...@netvision.net.il (Alex Oren) wrote:
>>(see subject line)
Rule #6
Disgrutled Diamond customers will cross-post their gipes across
usenet forever. (I've trimmed the newsgroups line...)
--
blue (Steve Heaslip)
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth
makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers."
-Charles Peguy
Mike J. Scott
>Dunno what this thread is doing in the Doom2 newsgroup, but I can't help
>but put my .02 in on this as I am a very unhappy diamond stealth (2mb
>vram) owner. Diamond cards have a bug in them ... the hex address
>cascades into the com4 port's address, making it useless.
>
>Have been back and forth with them and their lame, work-around,
>non-helpful answers ... Do yourself a favor and return your diamond and
>get a no. 9 ... at least their S-3 series states in advance that this is
>this problem ...
This is not a bug in either card. Nor is it a bug in the 8514/a video
standard which is the source of the confusion. It is caused by a cheapo
serial port address decoder. In short, it's your serial port card, not
your video card. All 8514/a compatible video cards (including ATI's
Mach 32 and 64 and S3 Vision/Trio cards) will exhibit this problem
when used with a poor serial port decoder.
Read the cisph.video FAQ (I just posted it) for an explanation. Look
in the section "Are there known conflicts with my video card?
ciao,
--
Michael J. Scott R.R.I., U of Western Ontario
mjs...@heartlab.rri.uwo.ca 'Need a good valve job?'
PC Video Hardware FAQ: http://www.heartlab.rri.uwo.ca/videofaq.html
############### Illegitimus non tatum carborundum. ##############
kooi-lean teh
>kyr...@zenon.logos.hol.gr wrote:
>>
>> meh...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (Cyrus K. Mehta) wrote:
>>
>> >HI,
>>
>> > I don't know if this will help anyone, but I was able to recently
>> >get my monitor to 1024x768(with any reasonable resolution and color) by
>> >using the updated Diamond Stealth drivers on the Micro$oft web page. If
>> >I remember correctly the MS CD for win95 has version 4.0 drivers, while
>> >the updates were 4.1. It certainly made a difference in my display, but
>> >I had a new Stealth 64bit with 2DRAM to begin with, now it is somewhat
>> >better.
>>
>> >Elizabeth B. Nguyen (gt7...@acme.gatech.edu) wrote:
>> >: to...@pfmedia.demon.co.uk (Tony Lonorgan) wrote:
>>
>> >: >Hi
>> >: > Just got to put my two pence worth into this discussion. Am I
>> >: >the only one to get a Stealth 64 DRAM (2MB) to work properley with
>> >: >Win95 ?. I am running perfectly well at 1024x768 in 64K colours, with
>> >: >a refresh rate of 70HZ. If you use the drivers in the
>> >: >drivers/display/diamond directory on the CD the refresh rates of
>> >: >monitor type you selected will be passed on to the card (I have an ADI
>> >: >Microscan 4V). The only thing that pisses me off is that I still need
>> >: >to use S64DMODE.EXE to center the screen, as otherwise it is to far
>> >: >out to pull in with the monitors control own controls. I am a bit
>> >: >disturbed about the comments that the Win 95 drivers are not
>> >: >accelerated, but it seems fast enough to me (I have a 16MB P75).
>> >: >Cheers Tony.
>>
>> >: I've had no trouble in the sense that my windows display looks find,
>> >: but I'm extremely pissed off about the lack of driver support. Yes,
>> >: I get the proper refresh rate, and windows runs fine on my P90 w/
>> >: 16MB, but I have an expensive video card sitting in my machine
>> >: that's performing basically no functions beyond those that any
>> >: $50 card could do. I'll never buy Diamond again, that's for damn
>> >: sure. When I buy 3D card it definitely won't be their dysfunctional
>> >: blunt Edge.
>>
>> >: liz
>>
>> Diamond Stealth 64 VIDEO VRAM which is supposed to support DCI and
>> play AVIs at 1024x768 24bit colour with hardware scaling which is not
>> supported by any drivers other than 3.1's then you have a problem
>> because you payed 100 pounds more just for this feature!
>
>Diamond could simply write a new driver for the card and reclaim its
>functionalities but they ain't doing that. The drivers that people do
>get with Windows 95 is written for 3 generations of S3 chips and only
>provides barebone functionality. Get Matrox, they seem to care far more
>about customer loyalty
R. Kent Cowan
> I have to say this much, I pity all those owners of Diamond products. I
>used to own a Stealth 64 myself. The drivers they provide are unstable, tech
>support is unknowledgeable (at least from my own experience), and their
>products do not perform all that great under Win 95 even with their updated
>drivers. On the other hand, I am now the proud owner of two ATI cards
>(Graphics Xpression (486) and Graphics Pro Turbo (Pentium)), and the cards
>operate flawlessly.
For you, maybe, but if you have a look around, you'll see that many of
us ATI owners are having real problems with these cards and little or
no help from tech support. I've owned the Xpression 2MB dram since
August and had lots of trouble with it. Not one thing has tech
support corrected (moreover, they don't seem to know what they're
doing). And, btw, I was really happy to learn that they removed the
EEPROM from the newer Xpression cards, the one I own, to save a few
bucks on production. If Diamond is even worse than ATI, they must be
pretty bad.
> The drivers they provide are stable, and ATI constantly
>updates to provide their customers with performance enhancements. Heck, their
The most recent Win95 drivers are very unstable for many users. I can
no longer run at 256 colours without getting a never ending stream of
"illegal operation" messages. ATI say they are aware of the problem
(a common one) but don't know when they'll have a fix ("we'll let you
know", yeah, right).
....Kent
William R. Dirks
>av...@netvision.net.il (Alex Oren) wrote:
>>(see subject line)
>>Rule #1:
>> We do not write drivers for our cards.
>>Rule #2:
>> Even if we do occationaly write a driver, it will be slow and buggy.
>>Rule #3:
>> Customer support? What's that?
>>Rule #4:
>> Customer sattisfaction? You gotta be kidding!
>Addition:
>Rule #5:
> We will not answer to e-mails regarding drivers for out Graphics
>Cards.
FWIW they responded to my e-mail. But it took two weeks. And the
instructions in the reply did not work. (aargh)
But I now have got it working. I think some of you are having similar
problems to the ones I had, so maybe the following will help someone.
I have a Stealth 64 DRAM (PCI), and when I upgraded to Win95 I couldn't
get above 60Hz refresh, couldn't select 800x600 modes above 16 colors,
and 1024x768 was interlaced.
There is a driver update on the Win95 CD-ROM, but it is not officially
supported by Microsoft, and the Win95 installation/control panel will not
install it. You have to install it manually. The driver is in the
\drivers\display\diamond directory. The way the Diamond support guy told
me to install it was to right-click on the icon and select Install on the
menu that comes up, but, for no discernable reason, that did not work.
After much poking around I did manage to install it. The following worked
for me:
Go to the Control Panel. Double-click the System (NOT Display!) icon.
Select Device Manager tab...Display adapters...<your current adapter>...
Driver tab...Change driver button...Have disk button...Select the Win95
CD-ROM and enter \drivers\display\diamond for the diretory. Then select
your adapter from the list (hopefully it's there!) and it should
install. After that you should be able to use most modes at flicker-free
refresh rates. Of course, you must select your monitor type in the
Display control panel.
I am now using 1024x768x256 at 75Hz, and there's no flicker and
everything's real fast. Of course, the Diamond situation could be much
better. It took me a long time to get this working, and I still don't
have as many modes as under Win3.1 (800x600x16M and, I think,
1280x1024x256 don't work). I haven't tried other modes yet so I don't
know how fast they are.
Bill.
H0...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
run a little bit quicker now.
Larry Craven
: I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and have
: January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had nothing
: Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
: graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
I agree with you on Graphics Xpression. I bought the 2mb version as soon
as it became available and have never regretted it. ATI has really kept
the Win95 drivers current and has integrated their program nicely into
the Win95 desktop properties setup.
Larry
Daniel Wm Brick III
>
> I also have had many problems installing my Stealth 64, but it seems to
> run a little bit quicker now.
>
I'm curious.. I had absolutely NO problems installing my stealth 64
Video 3200, aside from the fact that my original motherboard was one of
those crap hybrid VESA/PCI local bus and the stealth didn't work on
that.
dBIII+
Gripp
only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
Software companies are already developing for the Verite chip (id is
one of them... In fact, Verite-based cards are the only ones that
Quake will have special support for out of the box). The other great
thing about it is that it has a VGA core, and implements a lot of 2D
accelleration as well as 3D. Thus, if you're a heavy gamer, but do a
lot of stuff in Win95 and need good accelleration, you'll benefit
all-around. It's also got a programmable RISC chip integrated in it
so that all the stuff written for the older 3D cards can be easily
moved over to the verite. The RISC also helps because while the 3D
engine is rendering the current frame, the RISC chip is getting the
next one ready. The only cards I've heard of using this chip are the
3D Blaster PCI and something from #9 (both due out like Jan-Feb '96).
I'm really looking foreward to seeing these cards in action.
_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ rue...@lafayette.edu
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ ftp://wouldn.t.you.like.to.know
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ http://this.page.intentionally.left.blank
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ a.k.a.=> Gripp (all you ifraggers know and
_/ fear me... Well, not all
of you...:)
"[insert thoughtful quote here]"
Harald Anund Brombach
In article <DJEKH...@news.sgp.hp.com>, kooi-lean teh <kooi-l...@hp-malaysia-om2.om.hp.com> writes:
> Tony Chow <gree...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >Diamond could simply write a new driver for the card and reclaim its
> >functionalities but they ain't doing that. The drivers that people do
> >get with Windows 95 is written for 3 generations of S3 chips and only
> >provides barebone functionality. Get Matrox, they seem to care far more
> >about customer loyalty
>
>
Take at look at the WWW-page: http://www.diamondmm.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Harald Brombach - har...@ifi.uio.no
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~haralb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Glue
> Quick question: what does the Rage use for 3D chips? Right now, the
>only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
>It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
>Software companies are already developing for the Verite chip (id is
>one of them... In fact, Verite-based cards are the only ones that
>Quake will have special support for out of the box). The other great
>thing about it is that it has a VGA core, and implements a lot of 2D
>accelleration as well as 3D. Thus, if you're a heavy gamer, but do a
>lot of stuff in Win95 and need good accelleration, you'll benefit
>all-around. It's also got a programmable RISC chip integrated in it
>so that all the stuff written for the older 3D cards can be easily
>moved over to the verite. The RISC also helps because while the 3D
>engine is rendering the current frame, the RISC chip is getting the
>next one ready. The only cards I've heard of using this chip are the
>3D Blaster PCI and something from #9 (both due out like Jan-Feb '96).
>I'm really looking foreward to seeing these cards in action.
Direct3D under Windows 95 eliminates to need to decide what chipset is
the best "supported". It's the future of 3D games. From what I hear,
the ATI Rage has been recieving outstanding reviews from developers.
The chipset, like the Mach64, is of ATI's own design. And it also has
a VGA core from the Mach64 series, which is quite fast.
Jonathan Wayne
>
> I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and have
>nothing but great things to say about their card. I have been reading
>that ATI will be releasing a 3D accelerator called 3D RAGE sometime in
>January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had nothing
>but problems with that card running Win 3.11, so I exchanged for ATI
>Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
>graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
I too have an Xpression. Try running the Journeyman Project. Doesn't
work properly with ATI (true type errors, gpfs). Try running Worlds
Chat. Doesn't work at all with ATI Mach64. Both of these are known
problems (to the respective manufacturers); to date ATI hasn't been
able to come up with a fix.
Now try the latest buggy ATI drivers for Windows 95 and you'll see why
many customers are up in arms. (BTW, for now you should use the
default ATI drivers that come with Win 95).
For the most part I haven't had problems, but the above is a caution
for those that think that ATIs are "hassle-free". If you have
Compuserve access (still the best service for software/hardware
support and information exhange regarding specific manufacturers), you
can see other problems that folks are having with Mach drivers.
OTOH, my experience with ATI tech support has been excellent (while
Diamond has a reputation at the other end of the spectrum).
jon
-----
Jonathan Wayne
jwa...@mars.superlink.net
Darin Lopez
>
> Harold Kramus (hk...@ruper.com) wrote:
>
> : I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and
have
> : nothing but great things to say about their card. I have been
reading
> : that ATI will be releasing a 3D accelerator called 3D RAGE sometime
in
> : January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had
nothing
> : but problems with that card running Win 3.11, so I exchanged for
ATI
> : Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
> : graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
>
soon
> as it became available and have never regretted it. ATI has really
kept
> the Win95 drivers current and has integrated their program nicely
into
> the Win95 desktop properties setup.
>
> Larry
have nothing bad to say about ATI (I am fickle person normally). For
the money you can't wrong. I would also be interested in their new
Video Xpression or even their 3D card. Has anyone seen the 3D card yet?
KD4PON
/Harold Kramus (hk...@ruper.com) wrote:
/
/: I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and have
/: nothing but great things to say about their card. I have been reading
/: that ATI will be releasing a 3D accelerator called 3D RAGE sometime in
/: January or February. I used to own a Diamond speedstar, and had nothing
/: but problems with that card running Win 3.11, so I exchanged for ATI
/: Xpression. I would recommend this card to anyone who wants a solid
/: graphics performer and hassle-free Windows 95.
/
/I agree with you on Graphics Xpression. I bought the 2mb version as soon
/as it became available and have never regretted it. ATI has really kept
/the Win95 drivers current and has integrated their program nicely into
/the Win95 desktop properties setup.
Same thing here! I have a ATI Mach 32 Ultra Pro and can only
say good things about that card. Have had it for over two years
now and run it every day with no problem. The ATI folks have
always been a big help with questions.
Jim
Tharumasegaram Janahan
I have some drivers in my home page
http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~cs95taj/soft.htm
Try these as it will give you those extra modes, and they are
faster than the ones included with windows. I have scaled a 256
colour Video Clip to full screen at 1280x1024x256 without
any flicker or slowness. (I have a Stealth 64DRAM VLB running on a
486 DX2 66)
They are from S3 Inc. Not Diamond, so in my theory, they
should bloody well know how to program their own chips.
By the way You still have to set the refresh rates with an
external program such as S64DMODE.EXE or GO95.EXE, but I find
that this is more better as You can set the exact rates,
not any default raes, but may not be easy more novices.
Jano
--
============================================================|
| ************************************** | /\ |
| * ____ ____ * | /..\ |
| * | | * /\ \ / | / . .\ |
| * |--- |--- * /__\ \ / | /. . \ |
| * |____ |____ * / \ \/ | /. . . \ |
| * ******** ____/ | ----||---- |
| | -- |
| | Merry X'Mas |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|Real Name:- Tharumasegaram Janahan (aka Jano) |
|EMAIL :- <cs9...@brunel.ac.uk> |
|WWW home :- http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~cs95taj |
=============================================================
Jason Beverton
>
> Quick question: what does the Rage use for 3D chips? Right
now, the
> only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
> It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
> Software companies are already developing for the Verite chip (id is
> one of them... In fact, Verite-based cards are the only ones that
> Quake will have special support for out of the box). The other great
> thing about it is that it has a VGA core, and implements a lot of 2D
> accelleration as well as 3D. Thus, if you're a heavy gamer, but do a
> lot of stuff in Win95 and need good accelleration, you'll benefit
> all-around. It's also got a programmable RISC chip integrated in it
> so that all the stuff written for the older 3D cards can be easily
> moved over to the verite. The RISC also helps because while the 3D
> engine is rendering the current frame, the RISC chip is getting the
> next one ready. The only cards I've heard of using this chip are the
> 3D Blaster PCI and something from #9 (both due out like Jan-Feb '96).
> I'm really looking foreward to seeing these cards in action.
>
>
accelerator. I personally, don't like to touch unknowns such as Verite
or Rendition. ATI has a great reputation for excellent performing
cards, and I don't see why that should change with their 3D card. Plus,
I have read that ATI has actually formed an industry wide consortium of
developers to promote the development of PC gaming. The article said
that of all the major card companies in graphics, ATI was most in tune
with the Games developers.
Timothy P. Kelley
>So on one hand we have a technologically-superior card (IMHO) from ATI,
>but a likely better-supported card from Creative Labs.
No - support is a non-issue. The support is for Direct 3D, not the hardware.
If you won't use win95, there is no point whatsoever in getting any of these
cards. ATI will be as well supported a Creative Labs, as Matrox, as
Diamond, as Hercules, and on and on and on.
>*SO* I'm in a bit of a quandry.
Not anymore!
=====================================
Tim Kelley
tke...@ix.netcom.com
N.J. (Nick) Andriash
>> Likewise here. I have owned an Xpression for over 5 months now and
>>have nothing bad to say about ATI (I am fickle person normally). For
>>the money you can't wrong. I would also be interested in their new
>>Video Xpression or even their 3D card. Has anyone seen the 3D card yet?
I have their Mach 64 WinTurbo card, and up until now, I have been totally
satisfied with their Product. But just lately, I have noticed a small
'scratch' at the bottom of my screen.... and it is NOT in the glass... and it
is NOT visible when I go to Dos Mode. I have a call into ATI so I will wait
and see what their tech support says about it. I have had a few replies from
readers of this Newsgroup, and they have said perhaps it is corrupted VRAM,
while another said that it might be a problem with the picture tube ??
But I am seriously looking at getting their new 3D card... but don't know a
lot about it.
Nick...
___ | / /______ /___ | N.J.(Nick) Andriash
__ |/ / ___ _ / __ /| | B.C.A.S. Paramedic ~~ Station 248
_ /| / / /_/ / _ ___ | Vancouver, B.C. Canada
/_/ |_/ \____/ /_/ |_| nich...@smartt.com
A J Bryant
>Gripp (rue...@lafayette.edu) spewed forth on Tue, 12 Dec 1995 06:47:55 GMT:
>: Quick question: what does the Rage use for 3D chips? Right now, the
>: only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
>: It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
Try looking for stuff that supports an already well established standard - OpenGL
This is a graphics language with 3D enhancements that came from the masters
or professional graphics workstations, Silicon Graphics. It could ? be the
way forward. Any views on this ?
Andy. (About to start learning Open GL for a raytracing project)
Paul K
>
> Jason Beverton <j...@que.ca> wrote:
> >Gripp wrote:
> >>
> >> Quick question: what does the Rage use for 3D chips?
Right
> >now, the
> >> only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite
chip.
> >> It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot
of
that MS hosted
> this last fall. He said that ATI along with many other card vendors
got together
> in Redmond and worked with MS software people for a week to create a
standard for
> PC games in Win95. They all played games all day and coded on the
fly to come
> up with some solutions to 3D rendering problems in GUI environs. I
understand
> that the video card compainies came armed with new high tech 3D
accelerator
> hardware. The word was that ATI has the most pull when it comes to
support
> from MS with regard to optimized code. Like I said, this info was
second sourced
> from an employee. I don't know for sure how much it true.
> I tend to be siding tward the ATI card even though CL has some great
products.
>
>
Cirrus Logic? You gotta be kidding.. I agree with all of the above
statements that ATI is definitely in tune with the games developers.
Check out the Microsoft web site for information on the Judgement Day
Halloween bash in Redmond. ATI was one of the few companies working
with MS on game development for Win 95. Their Video Xpression card also
looks real promising (Arcade Rage with MK III for Win 95).
Paul K
Patrick Libuda
>
>tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) wrote:
>
>>On 7 Dec 1995 12:47:02 GMT, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) wrote:
>
>>>In article <4a6m2h$i...@ftp.univie.ac.at>, al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) writes:
>>>|> In article <4a4o8b$m...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>, mjs...@jones.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Mike J. Scott) writes:
>>>|> |> In article <4a3vgh$f...@ftp.univie.ac.at>,
>>>|> |> Alex Celic <al...@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>>|> |> >In article <30c4f15d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
>>>|> |> Yes but wait until the next release date comes and goes - remember Chicago?
>>>|>
>>>|> Could be, could be....
>>>|>
>>>|> But it still seems that the drivers available now are not that bad. According
>>>|> to another post, the Stealth with unaccelerated drivers outperforms the
>>>|> Hercules Stingray with "great hercules drivers" by ~50% (WinBench 3.1).
>>>|> If my primary interest were Win95, I'd still wait for the Diamond drivers.
>>>
>>>Sorry, mistake. The poster said "performance loss of 50% due to the trashing
>>>of Diamond and installing the Stingray". This means, the Diamond outperforms
>>>the Stingray 100% (twice faster).
>
>>Well, yeah, but it is $140 cheaper ... how does the Hercules S3 968 card fare against it?
>
>I promised myself I wouldn't jump in on this thread (which obviously
>started as a troll), but you've made an excellent point. If our
>low-end, inexpensive DRAM cards were as good as other vendors
>high-end, VRAM cards, we wouldn't need to offer a Vision968 product of
>our own!
>
>It's quite simple: under Windows 95, pick any of our current products
>and compare it to the equivalent Diamond Multimedia product using the
>same chipset (Vision968, Trio64, ARK2000, and so on) using the latest
>publicly available driver for each product -- and our product will
>give you a higher score under Winbench 96, Winstone 96, or Speedy.
>
>(our FTP hits always jump significantly after I point this out, most
>likely to the chagrin of our own customers, so here's my usual
>reminder: our drivers won't work on Diamond products, so please don't
>download them. If you have a Diamond product, just be patient.)
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Timothy P. Kelley E-mail:tke...@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>"The three things were damnably clever constructions of their kind,
>>and were furnished with ingenious mettalic clamps to attach them to
>>organic developments of which I dare not form any conjecture."
>> -H.P. Lovecraft
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>= drh...@hercules.com or www.hercules.com
>= New toll-free support! See our web site for details.
>
Hi Dylan,
grovelling is not usually my cup of tea but I have to admit that did a brilliant job with your S3-968.
I have it (as stated before in this 'forum') and I love it. When will the new WIN95 drivers come out?
robertson jason vict
>Gripp (rue...@lafayette.edu) spewed forth on Tue, 12 Dec 1995 06:47:55 GMT:
>: only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
>: It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
>
>http://www.atitech.ca/pr/3drage.html) and it looks like ATI has decided
>to use its own chip..... they believe they can build a better card by
>*not* using a third-party chip like the Verite.
>
>FWIW, their implementation is called the EVA, or Enhanced Visual
>Architecture.
>
>I, too, am really intersted in picking up a 3D acclerator in the spring,
>once the market's a bit more saturated. At this point I'd have to say
>it's between the PCI 3D Blaster and the 3D Rage, and I'm having a little
>trouble deciding at this point. Creative Labs has always set the
>standard for 'global' sound & video technology (well, SOUND anyway ;) and
>they've gone with the Verite chip for their PCI 3D Blaster... they also
>boast software support form over 200 manufacturers and five (?) bundled
>titles that utilize the chip. ATI, on the other hand, makes no
>statements about software support (by that phrase (for lack of a better
>one) I mean endorsements from software developers), and no mention of
>bundled titles. As far as I know, the retail prices are supposed to be
>comparable.
>
Yeah, we'll all probably end up getting stuck with a CL card. Hopefully it
will be a good thing to get stuck with.
>So on one hand we have a technologically-superior card (IMHO) from ATI,
>but a likely better-supported card from Creative Labs. I don't want to
>forget that 3D hardware is useless without software that uses it.....
>*SO* I'm in a bit of a quandry. I'd like to hear more opinions on the
As far as software.. I wonder if XFree86 will ever (well, anytime in the next
year or so) add 3D support via OpenGL. How does software support for these
chips work? Do you write an OpenGL layer in software that translates to the
card, or does the card understand OpenGL directly, or what?
--
Buh?
PGP: finger jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
email: jrob...@uiuc.edu [MIME/PGP accepted]
Urban Roth
>now, the
>> only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite chip.
>> It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot of
Miro
> : only chipset I'd even consider buying a card with is the Verite
chip.
> : It really sounds like that's the path of the future for 3D. A lot
of
>
ATI,
> but a likely better-supported card from Creative Labs. I don't want
to
> forget that 3D hardware is useless without software that uses it.....
> *SO* I'm in a bit of a quandry. I'd like to hear more opinions on
the
> towards Creative Labs..... though replacing my video card will mean
> getting rid of the Mach64 that's kept me happy for months and months
> now.... damn this is hard ;)
>
> I'm impressionable..
Actually, I don't think you have read the press release carefully
enough. Many of the industry's biggest movers and shakers have
commended ATI for keeping it's standards open for developers to take
advantage of. Unlike Diamond, who are sticking with a proprietary API
(Yikes, i feel real sorry for this people who bought these cards) the
ATI 3D Rage will be supported by all major developers. As for Creative
Labs, they have a rep for shipping low quality shareware games with
their products. ATI is a leader in it's own industry, and Creative Labs
is a novice in the graphics and video arena. I'll hedge my bets with
ATI because of their reputation for producing high quality products.
Plus, I don't think 3D API will be the same as sound card standards.
Microsoft is establishing the Defacto API, and all hardware vendors
will follow with their implementations.
Miro
>
> Harold Kramus <hk...@ruper.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have owned an ATI Graphics Xpression for over a year now, and
have
reading
in
nothing
ATI
>
Doesn't
> work properly with ATI (true type errors, gpfs). Try running Worlds
> Chat. Doesn't work at all with ATI Mach64. Both of these are known
> problems (to the respective manufacturers); to date ATI hasn't been
> able to come up with a fix.
>
> Now try the latest buggy ATI drivers for Windows 95 and you'll see
why
> many customers are up in arms. (BTW, for now you should use the
> default ATI drivers that come with Win 95).
>
> For the most part I haven't had problems, but the above is a caution
> for those that think that ATIs are "hassle-free". If you have
> Compuserve access (still the best service for software/hardware
> support and information exhange regarding specific manufacturers),
you
> can see other problems that folks are having with Mach drivers.
>
> OTOH, my experience with ATI tech support has been excellent (while
> Diamond has a reputation at the other end of the spectrum).
>
> jon
>
using the Mach 64, but I question whether it is more the software
developers responsibility rather than ATI. For one, ATI has a big
installed base of some 10 million cards, and you would think that
developers would keep this in mind when writing software. Also, by
saying that ATI has all these people up in arms over their drivers is
a bit of an overstatement. Take it within the context, the compuserve
forum is a medium in which users with problems will seek help, and
thus the perceived problems of the drivers are a result of the
forum's purpose- that is to resolve it. If you goto any other graphics
card vendor forums you will see much of the same, if not more user
concerns. I have been running the 2.01 drivers on my Xpression
flawlessly for over a month now. Every PC is equipped differently and
thus the potential for problems exist unlike the Mac.
Paul K
Check out their website http://www.atitech.ca/pr/3drage.html for
some info on their 3D Card.